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?"

Part 2 of the ongoing debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.

posted 5/10/2007 08:54AM

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 177 comments.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ...

Show All

Konstantin

Posted: May 22, 2007 1:50 AM

Apologia, you asked: "How can one have an ever evolving world, yet fixed principles?" Only an ignorant person can believe in fixed moral principles. Morality has been evolving ever since human civilizations emerged. Just look back 50 years, and you will see how attitudes toward racism have changed in the United States. That is an example of the evolution of morality. Now take a look two thousand years back, and you will find plenty of nasty things in the Bible that you would no longer subscribe to. Do you really believe God ordered the Jews to wipe out nations and cities, including infants? Do you really believe God is pro-slavery? Do you really believe women are inferior to men? Do you really believe children should be stoned to death for disobedience? These are the clear teachings of your Bible, and yet you and I will agree that they are poisonous and cruel. So the Bible certainly does not provide "fixed principles," and indeed such principles do not exist.

hasty toweling

Posted: May 20, 2007 7:23 PM

apologia, claiming to have a rational basis for your ethics is different from actually having one. You say Christians have one, but this is really contingent on Christianity being the One True Religion. Muslims believe that Christians are morally wrong just for having their beliefs - - they are all going to Hell. So, before you can assert your fixed moral standard, you have to demonstrate, in some way, shape or form, that Muslims, all 1 billion of them, are wrong. But even that won't do it. You also have to explain why all of the other religions are wrong. But even that won't do it. You still have to give some reason why Christianity is True. The closest anyone on this comment thread came to doing this was to say the Yahweh is humble -- needless to repeat, I'm not convinced by this. Until some reason is given why Christianity is factually true, all talk about morals and logic being based on it is completely empty. Why are you so certain that you're right and all Muslims arent?

Hasty Toweling

Posted: May 20, 2007 9:36 AM

Kosmiceggburst, your post is possibly the silliest and most ignorant thing ever written. All of the "new athiests" (Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and Hitchens) rail into Islam even more than Christianity. Islam is all of the worst aspects of Christianity multiplied by 10. You could actually try reading one of their books (or any book for matter) before presenting an "observation". Christianity gets more attention because it is more prominent in our country. Your idea that Theism = Christianity would be hilarious if I didn't think that you actually meant it. Have you heard of Hinduism? For Christ's sake man, you're making yourself look stupid here.

apologia

Posted: May 19, 2007 6:54 PM

hasty toweling- thank you for responding. what I mean by athiest not being able to find the basis for their their logic, inductive reasoning, as well as their ethics is that all men theists and athiests use logic, inductive reasoning, and whether they claim to or not, they have a moral standard. what I am argueing is that Christians believe in a logical, consistent ethical God, and men made in His image. Thus, Christians can account for their logic, reason, and ethics, but Athiests have no justification for them. Many argue that they evolved as man evolved, but how can one have an ever evolving world, yet fixed principles. And how can inductive reasonig evolve if inductive reasoning is contingent on a consistent world..... Thank you very much for your time.

Getting Bored

Posted: May 18, 2007 11:17 PM

Wilson should retract his earlier statement that Hitchens is his intellectual superior - and that's not a comment on Wilson's intellect. H hasn't even come close to entering the debate, and he keeps demonstrating how unwilling (unable?) he is to engage W's points. For example, when H says to W, "When you say that men have never known nor yet understood the essential principle ... you speak absurdly," it appears that H is the only one who didn't realize that W was clearly talking about mankind's moral behavior, not mankind's moral awareness. H just isn't getting it, and this is getting very boring. At least W tried to move it forward here, by ignoring obvious inanities like the one I just pointed out, and by reminding H of his duty to show why Christianity is bad and why H's ethics and beliefs (particularly where they disagree with human innateness, which historically recognizes supernaturalism and judgment) are objectively good, right, and foundational. In any case H needs to show up.

hasty toweling

Posted: May 18, 2007 2:37 PM

apologia, finding a basis for reason and logic might be an interesting philosophical exercise, but it is far beyond the scope of what I'm trying to convey. In ordinary life, we're all confronted with opposing viewpoints and do the best that we can to decide what is right. Global warming is a good example. Whether humans are causing climate change is a tough question to decide on. The only way that you can hope to figure it out is to listen to different viewpoints, then try to make up your mind. That's really all I'm saying here. I'm not sure what you mean by trying to find a basis for this in an atheistic worldview; as far I'm concerned, atheism is a worldview the way that bald is a hair color. The kind of atheism that I "practice" is just this: Is Islam very convincing? Nope. How about Scientology?. Nope. How about...

Wilson's fallacies...

Posted: May 18, 2007 1:43 PM

And what, exactly, is so coherent or logical about morality when using the Bible as the reference point? The judeo-christian ethos is a moral nightmare. I'm sure you don't need me to enumerate its inconsistencies or its long miserable history. It's a failed experiment. Remember, the question of the debate is whether or not the world would be a better place without Christianity. While spooking people with hellfire may conceivably have been effective at certain times or places and in certain people, it is the *only* single thing that would make anyone less likely to commit a crime, and it is still a fiction for all that. I believe there are numerous disadvantages to building a society on such mendacity. Guilt and shame are innate in humans and there is no question that a morally ordered society needs them. Either they are traits that evolved in order to hold early human communities together, or they are divinely implanted (zero evidence for that). Either way, guilt and shame are real.

Rock	Posted: May 18, 2007 8:59 AM


Lee: Can you prove to me, based on the debate, that Wilson's primary goal was to mentioned in the same sentence as Chris Hitchens

Mark	Posted: May 17, 2007 9:23 PM


Hasty: Let me just say that some contradictions are more profound than others. As for your Biblical contradiction zinger, Jacob's name was changed to Israel, Abram's to Abraham Sarai's to Sarah and Daniel's to Belteshazzar (to name just a few). If we hadn't already been privy to this information, would you have used those as "contradiction" examples like you did Jacob and Heli?

apologia

Posted: May 17, 2007 9:14 PM

Hasty Towling- Correct me if I am wrong, but you were telling another person who was commenting on this site that they had not given enough evidence or reasons for why one should choose Christianity over other religions? I observe then that you make decisions based on logic and inductive reasoning? This is very reasonable in itself, but I ask you then where your logic and reasoning find their basis- please explain the nature of these things in an Atheistic worldview. Are they set principles? If so, did they evolve over time, or are the eternal laws? Thank you very much for your time.

hasty toweling

Posted: May 17, 2007 7:48 PM

Lee(the Christian), my apologies for not recognizing the humble nature of your particular version of God as being reason to proclaim my absolute devotion to him. Apparently, in your view, a humble nature (or lack thereof) is sufficient to determine Truth or Falsity. I have no idea why this should be so (for all I know, perhaps the most vengeful God is the True One), so I'm still where I was before -- with no way of deciding why I should follow you instead of the Muslims who know that you are going to Hell. I'll assume that the reason you gave is the best that you can come up with since it was your first response. If that is true, then my only conclusion must be, that in fact, you have no good reason for your beliefs. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, the only thought that I can possibly entertain is that Christianity, like Islam, Scientology, etc., is merely a product of the human imagination, and my soul is still in Jeopardy.

Chris

Posted: May 17, 2007 5:10 PM


I guess I'm left wondering if there is no God, then how can morality exist? If there's no god, there's no reason for me not to molest children, kill people, etc. What is the basis for morality if it isn't a god?

Boz	Posted: May 17, 2007 1:40 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.

Jim	Posted: May 15, 2007 10:13 PM


"So you must either believe that god gave this 'moral' impluse to me, an non believer, without my knowledge" That is precisely what we believe.

Lee (the Christian)

Posted: May 15, 2007 9:57 PM

Kris, claiming something is a contradiction is not the same thing as demonstrating it. Some of the cited candidate contradictions can be answered by leaving the quotes in context. For example, in the Psalms, "the Lord is good to all" -- "all" being "His people" would have been understood by a contemporary Hebrew. There is no reason God cannot be a God of war or of peace, and Ecclesiastes insists there is a time for both. In terms of begats, sometimes all the generations are not listed. As for the genealogical differences, some conservative scholars assume one side is Joseph, the other Mary. Some of the contradictions you provided aren't even contradictions at all, just one account is in more detail than the other. In the account of the Trinity, why can't Jesus and the Father "be one", and the Father greater than the Son at the same time? What is it about Trinitarian physics that requires that to be contradictory? Try reading the Bible without pouncing every second.

Lee (the Christian)

Posted: May 15, 2007 9:42 PM

Hasty, I didn't say belief in Jesus was "impossible to explain." I said I can't prove it. As far as explaining it, it's difficult in 1,000 character snippets, but I imagined I had made a good start. You said, I said nothing about Christianity that would draw you to it. I suggested: find another religion with a humble God. I assure you, Allah is not humble. Muslims are never less like their god than when they are worshipping him; Christians, on the other hand, are never more like their God than when they are worshipping Him. I'm not familiar with the "stoned" penalty for working on the Sabbath -- I think "cut off from his people" is given as the penalty for not observing it. BTW, some scholars have suggested the Sabbath as a reason that the Jewish people have survived all these millenia. It was intended as a gift.

Kurtis Smith

Posted: May 15, 2007 7:22 PM

Lisa Thompson: Just to be sure I got it straight, I reviewed your previous comments, and they stated your request three slightly different ways: Prove that objective moral standards exist. Prove the existence of objective morality. Prove that objective morality exists. Since they’re almost identical, I’m working with the first one: “Prove that objective moral standards exist.” Since your last comment was posted, I haven’t seen you post anything here or under Part 3 of the Hitchens-Wilson debate. When I’m finished, where do you want my reply, here or under Part 3? Also, my schedule is very busy this week, so I think I’ll be forced to postpone finishing and posting my reply until this weekend.

Evan	Posted: May 15, 2007 12:51 PM

I have always found the argument that "Christianity is good because it provides a stable morality system" a strange argument for Christians to make. To true Christians, isn't morality purely a side-effect of their belief in the truth of their doctrine, not the reason for their belief? Christians accept on faith and, as I understand it, then define the tenets of their faith as "moral" by fiat, not by rational justification. Thus, I would think that a Christian would argue that Christianity is good for the world because it is the one and only truth, while I might expect an atheist to argue that Christianity can be "good" for some because it, at least, urges a moral code on those who cannot find one in any other manner.

Wonderings and Vagaries

Posted: May 14, 2007 11:04 PM

Kris: Again, I'm afraid that you've completely misunderstood my question. I must be phrasing it badly. Let me try again: in a (much earlier now) post, you said that history proves that humans decide what is 'moral' and what is'immoral', and in the same sentence that humans have sometimes chosen poorly. I think that those two claims are inconsistent, but I could be wrong depending on what you mean by humans choosing poorly. If you mean that they have decided that some things are moral which are actually immoral, and vice versa, then your first statement cannot be true, or at least human decisions cannot be the ultimate standard. There must be something above or beyond humans that makes their choices good or "poor". If that is not what you mean by poor, or if you have a way of resolving your two statements, I would very much like to hear it.

Wonderings and Vagaries

Posted: May 14, 2007 10:50 PM

Hasty and Kris: I'm sorry, but you will never be able to convince an orthodox Christian that there are contradictions in the Bible. This is not because we are stubborn or irrational or exceptionally good apologists - it is because it one of our presuppositions. We cannot ever accept that our deepest presuppositions are incorrect; this is true of Christians, atheists, and all other humans. Look at it this way: most of us assume that nature is uniform, right? So, if we conduct an experiment exactly the same way three times and come up with three different results, will we decide that nature is not uniform after all? Of course not - we will decide that the conditions of the experiment were slightly different each time, even if they looked exactly the same to us. It is the same with with Christians and the Bible - before we doubt the perfection of the Bible, we will doubt our eyesight, our powers of reasoning, or our sanity, because the accuracy of the Bible is our deepest presupposition.

Kris Wright

Posted: May 14, 2007 10:36 PM

Yes. Like I said, I have the innate impluse to walk. But I can decide to crawl. I have an innate impluse that killing a family member is wrong. But I can decide to do it. We all can. As humans we are (physical limitations aside) capable of anything any other human has done, which is both horrifying and inspirational. Evolution produced emontionality as a trait in humans and a 'moral' impulse but it also produced a hand and brain to make weapons to kill. When actually anthropomorphizing about morality and evolution one quickly realizes that from that perspective it's a mixed bag. But evolution as a whole doesn't operate on 'moral' terms. It takes no such considerations into account.

Gabe Rench

Posted: May 14, 2007 10:25 PM


Kris- sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. You have been saying that morality is innate...a natural evolutionary process. Well, if morality is so...than immorality is inherent in that same process...in other words immorality comes from the same natural evolutionary process...immorality is natural for us.

hasty toweling

Posted: May 14, 2007 10:19 PM

Lee, you claim that your belief in Jesus is impossible to explain. Please forgive me for being unconvinced. Scientology, Islam, Hinduism, and Astrology are also impossible to explain "in rational terms". You give me nothing that draws me more towards Christianity than any of these other faiths, other than that you yourself believe it. But these other ideas also have adherents who believe just as strongly as you do. I'm essentially where I started and my soul is still in jeopardy. As for there being wisdom in the bible, I have no doubt about it; Ecclesiastes and the Sermon on the Mount are among the most beautiful words ever written; and who could doubt The Golden Rule being a precept that is beneficial to us all? However, in Exodus we find God commanding that anyone caught working on Sunday to be stoned to death. Was this ever a good idea? Is it possible that the ultimate truth is still out there, unknown to anyone, and that Islam, Hinduism, etc. are just man-made?

hasty toweling

Posted: May 14, 2007 9:50 PM

Mark, you actually give a pretty good reason why Islam is wrong: a contradiction. Essentially, you say it claims that Jesus was both a great prophet and a liar. Sounds good, although I'm not really sure how "orthodox" the idea of Jesus being a great prophet is within Islam, since it also claims that Jesus' followers will burn in Hell (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38). If all it takes is a simple contradiction to dismiss a faith revered by millions, you are in trouble my friend, as I'm surprised you were not already aware. Mat 1:16 says that Joseph's father was Jacob; Luk 3:23 say it is Heli. Of course there are many more such examples, and you can find them using any search engine. All I can say is welcome to the club of the non-Christians my friend! You can still believe in a higher power, just not Yahweh (or Allah, apparently). May I suggest "A Brief History of Time" to get you started along your new Spiritual Journey.

Kris Wright

Posted: May 14, 2007 9:50 PM

Lee- You wrote, "The Bible is too full of wisdom to believe we wrote it." What about all the contridictions? http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html What about all the referrences to slavery? Take this quiz, it gives the passages at the end. http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/slavery.html Are all these words by god? Does god contridict himself? Or are the contridictory/morally bad parts by man and the rest by god? If so, how do we determine which is which? And if god can't send a message without having it get all mixed up how powerful is she/he/it? If the bible is the literal word of god then we got problems on the moral front with parts. If it's confused by the authors and readers then we have a god that doesn't communicate clearly. And if it is confused by men how do we know the parts about 'morality' aren't confused? Or are those parts correct and other parts confused? See the confusion? Science is falsifiable, it eliminates confusion.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ...

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment