Is Christianity Good for the World?

Maybe, I misunderstood Wilson. But it seems that Wilson said that morality doesn't exist anywhere except with Christianity. That Confuicious, Buddism, philosophers, etc. have no morality. Man is an animal without Christianity. I was born in the USA going to Christian camp. I never thought outside of the box until now. By God's ultimatum. By fear and blackmail. That by only converting and accepting him can one avoid hell. Doesn't matter if you live a good life and/or out of reach of Christianity's message. All the people who are out of reach of Christianity's message are condemned and immoral(a bit cruel). And discounts everyone else's effort to respect a higher power regardless if the religions coincide. If one is born in the right country, one is gifted and elite. And obligated to convert others which reminds me of Howard Zinn's point of Christianity and foreign policy in third world countries. God forgives those who convert. Everyone is a sinner. But one can have immunity. So the end justify the means. Which may tend to promiscuity and cruelty even among fellow Christians. We get a free pass to do what we want. It lowers our expectation level. God is unforgiving by condemning people who are too far away, but then he forgives just about any other sin which seems contradictory. If we are forgiven, what is judgement day about? Wasn't Hitler a Christian all his life including most Germans at the time. I think I remember where I got that, from John Stockwell. Being the most educated religious culture, we would be the first to examine if our view of God is correct or not? Is it good or not? Religious wars are going on now in the name of God. I don't know why George Bush used the word "crusade" considering it's historical meaning. Are the soldiers of Blackwater predominantly Christian? Some Christians do recognize that the Bible profiles certain curent races. Many will argue that without religion, the world would be better off. I wonder. Al Sharpton said that his life experiences has reinforced his belief in God. My life experiences makes me believe that many unbelievers continue being Christians out of tradition and incentives. I've witnessed fellow Christians misrepresent God to manipulate, con and seperate people. But this is all okay, since God has already forgiven those who have converted to Christianity. When presented with the inconsistencies of the bible, Al Sharpton seemed to confess that he is agnostic. I used to read Proverbs. It said to honor your father and mother. What about the son who abandoned his father and came back to reap the rewards. What if one's father is performing incest? Is the child supposed to keep it a secret? To some the bible would be a sick joke. The KKK is using bible verses as their basis to segregate. I've witnessed a devout use the bible to seperate two strangers. I personally still don't know if religion is ultimately good or bad. For myself, I believe that my personal

This book reproduces an insightful and spirited recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson over what Dostoevsky called the Eternal Questions: What is the real nature of the universe in which we find ourselves? What are the ultimate bases of reason and ethics? Are there any ultimate sanctions governing human behavior? Though Hitchens is always worth reading for his quick wit and frequently surprising arguments, unfortunately in this debate he does not come off at his best. While graciously conceding that Hitchens has clean hands, Wilson wielding a very fine knife shows that Hitchens, sad to say, doesn't have any hands to begin with. Hitchens is of the view that the universe is the accidental consequence of swirling particles, claiming that his reason has led him to this conclusion. Wilson, in the style of C.S.Lewis, points out that if the world outside Hitchen's head is given over wholly to such irrational chemical processes, the world inside Hitchens' head can be no differently composed, and that what Hitchens refers to as "rational argument" has been "arbitrarily dubbed" so. Similarly, if there are no ultimate, objective standards in ethics, then despite Hitchens rhetorical maneuverings, what follows is what Dostoevsky's Ivan pointed out long ago: there is no "good" or "bad for "everything's permitted." Hitchens' "fulminations" against assorted zealots are, as a result, also merely arbitrary. To dispute the necessity of a God behind the Big Bang, Hitchens, with unusual complacency, rests his case on the principle called Ockham's Razor, the argument that it's bad logic to multiply entities. The problem here is that Ockham's Razor is at best a rule of thumb, never a guarantee of a royal road to truth in any particular case. On the other side, the weakest part of Wilson's case, in my view, is his failure to address the idea that the necessity for ultimate sanctions does not lead to the existence of a particular God, much less the God of Christianity. His arguments in the present debate end, in fact, at a considerable distance from either conclusion, though Wilson seems unaware of this shortcoming. Both men agree that it's possible in behavior for a person to be a righteous, ethical atheist. What is missing in their presentation here, however, is what can be found in Shakespeare's addition to the ending of the pagan story of King Lear. It will be remembered that the character of Cordelia is so ethically fine that Elizabethans would have dubbed her a "natural Christian." She is murdered, almost gratuitously, at play's end, and her distraught father cradles her broken body in his arms, a pieta whose meaning has yet to make any sense in the world of brutal men. The play's argument, I'd claim, supports Hitchens in his view that one can be a fine person without a Redeemer God yet on the scene. It also supports Wilson in his sense that ethics are not enough to make life bearable, since very often "the virtuous miscarry and the wi

When America's most influential conservative thinker (and Catholic) William F. Buckley died early this year (2/27/08) my sense of loss centered on this one thought: When Bill Buckley's "Firing Line" disappeared from television (almost a decade ago) we lost perhaps the greatest `give-and-take' (liberal/conservative debates) ever to grace our TV screens. Buckley's record-setting program ("longest-running TV show with just one host,") treated us to the very best in debates. (How could it not, with a guest list that ranged from Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, to Clare Boothe Luce and Henry Kissinger, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, William Kuntsler, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Louis Auchincloss, Tom Wolfe and Allen Ginsburg (and a host of other 'bright lights'). Most of Bill's shows were `political' . . . but my all-time favorite featured a former atheistic journalist (turned Catholic) Malcolm Muggeridge -- a program that, (like this book) is at the heart of the perennial subject most worth debating . . . the "existence of God." When I mentioned this book this morning at breakfast, my wife said: "Christopher Hitchens IS an intelligent man, isn't he?" And I thought (to myself, but didn't say out loud) that, "I've heard better, historical `apologetics for atheism' than those advanced in this book!" What I said (out loud) though, was: "Yes, he IS (smart) and - for that reason -- you'll really enjoy the `point/counterpoint' from the "Christian apologist" here, Douglas Wilson. [I'm certain Bill Buckley would have enjoyed 'hosting' this one!] Anyway, it would take a better mind than mine to recapitulate in fewer words, Mr. Wilson (who writes with a C.S. Lewis 'economy-of-style') in his brilliant reflections on Mr. Hitchens' best arguments. May I share a couple of favorites: See if they don't `speak' to your heart and mind (and life experience): --------- "Your first point (is) that the Christian faith cannot credit itself for all that `Love your neighbor' stuff -- not to mention the Golden Rule, and that the reason for this is that such moral precepts have been self-evident to everybody throughout history who wanted to have a stable society. "You then move on to the second point, which contains the idea that the teachings of Christianity are `incredibly immoral.' Apparently, basic morality is NOT all that self-evident. So my first question is: Which way do you want to argue this? Do all human societies have a grasp of basic morality, or has religion `poisoned EVERYTHING'?" "The second thing to observe in this regard is that Christians actually do not claim that the gospel has made the world better by bringing us turbo-charged ethical information. There have been ethical advances that are due to the propagation of the faith . . . but that is not `where the action is.' Christians believe - as C. S. Lewis argued in THE ABOLITION OF MAN - that non-believers do understand the basics of morality. "Paul the apostle refers to the Ge

This small book is a "must get". What you will read are two complete opposite world-views that are clashing. The format is limited, but I think you will get what both Hitchens and Wilson are saying easily enough...then again I, personally, don't think Mr. Hitchens got what Rev. Wilson was saying. Like most atheists he (Hitchens) can not answer the "why" of his morality or how to move across the bridge from "is" to "ought". Then again, you will have to read this great book and decide for yourself who you think is right. I, un-apologetically (pun intended), believe that Rev. Wilson is a very good apologist for the Christian faith and that he reveals "why" he does not have to apologize for his beliefs or faith (not that Mr Hitchens believes he has to either). After reading this book if you are frustrated that neither went far enough I suggest you read their other books - especially Wilson's more detailed answer to Hitchens' book ("God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything") in his small book entitled "God Is: How Christianity Explains Everything" That, too, is must reading!

Hitchens' reputation as an intellectual giant precedes him and shines throughout this intense yet civil exchange. Wilson, a lesser known intellectual of a different vein, hangs tough and arguably pokes a significant hole in Hitchens' logic. Indeed, what struck me most about this book was the degree of civility that both Hitchens and Wilson demonstrate in an age old debate that has otherwise been outright divisive. A must read for this reason alone...SOOOOO REFRESHING!!! Atheists and Christians alike (and everyone in between) will undoubtedly appreciate this most entertaining, short (61-page) exchange between Hitchens and Wilson. I plan on buying many more copies for family and friends to continue the debate!