What do you think?
Rate this book
Letter from a Christian Citizen: A Response to "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
Last year, Sam Harris made headlines and topped bestseller lists with his "angry and honest" Letter to a Christian Nation. At its heart, this little book was an atheist complaint against Harris pointed an accusing finger at the church, telling Christians that they weren't as nice as they thought they were and warning fellow agnostics that the Christians were out to get them. Prominent intellectuals and anti-Christians were quick to praise this little book; as one Harvard professor wrote, "Reading Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation was like sitting ring side, cheering the champion, yelling 'Yes!' at every jab." In response, Douglas Wilson has written his own little Letter From a Christian Citizen. As Gary DeMar writes in the foreword, "Douglas Wilson has taken the operating assumptions of Sam Harris seriously and has shown what life would be like if the world were consistent with atheistic assumptions." Walking through Harris' claims step-by-step, Wilson dismantles his arguments and demonstrates that honesty lies on the side of the Christians, not the atheists.
111 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2007
6 people are currently reading
366 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Wilson
302 books4,604 followersI write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
March 15, 2013
Christopher Hitchens was absolutely correct when he accused Wilson of having contempt for thought. Never before have I read a letter by a person so happy, so proud of his own bondage. Beginning with an egregious straw man of atheism that persist through the entire letter, Wilson misunderstands and falsely represents Harris's arguments and ineffectively attempts to dismantled them. There are a number of false analogies that continue to betray Wilson's ignorance of atheism, false dichotomies--his evolution rebuttal is a pure appeal to ignorance. I am left with the impression that this book was written to do damage control for the unfortunate Christian (fundamentalist) reader who happened to get lured in by the title of Harris's book, Letter to a Christian Nation. Wilson's rebuttal begs to reinforce the faith of the privileged believer. However, Wilson shows a startling lack of empathy for suffering, and takes a "that's what you get for not believing EXACTLY what I believe" attitude, suggesting that he lives in a part of the world where he mostly reads about atrocity rather than has to deal with it, and so it is as real as any other story he has been told--although admittedly, I cannot know this, only speculate. And like other evangelical writers I've reviewed, Wilson apparently thinks he holds the copyright and trademark over the official interpretation of the Bible, and knows with certainty that "God disposes His of His creation as He pleases" (107). By what right does Douglas Wilson claim to know the mind of God? And who does he think he is making those kinds of threats to people without any evidence to support his claims? While I disliked Letter from a Christian Citizen immensely, I will probably return to it in conjunction with Harris's letter.
March 21, 2013
Wilson seems to think that compassion cannot exist without some supreme being floating above us in vengeful judgment. Not only is this ignorant, but it's pretty goddamn sad...
January 13, 2008
I read this book today and was torn about what to rate it. Either two stars, or four. So I opted for the Aristotelian mean.
Why two stars? Because a lot of Wilson's claims are just plain ignorant about what philosophical positions atheists can hold, and justify. I get tired of the Bahnesbot approach to dealing with atheists, viz., "you're just a bag of matter," or "materialism admits of no immaterial entities in your ontology," or "atheists must be moral relativists," etc. In one place Wilson says that belief in a closed physical universe admits of no immaterial entities. Really? I just read an argument to the contrary by Russ Shafer-Landau in his book, Moral Realism: A Defense. Given his arguments, I don't see why not. But then again, I've moved on from archaic presuppositionalism. It doesn't bother me to allow the atheist to have his immaterial entities. Another point is when Wilson constantly claims that the atheist must think that man is simply a bag of chemicals. His thoughts are nothing but neurons firing. Maybe some atheists do believe this. But many atheists who are also physicalists can allow for mental properties to supervene on the physical. Now, this can be critiqued too, but not with the tired attacks Wilson launches.
Why the four? Because, much to my surprise, I really enjoyed this read. I read it between commercials during the playoffs today, and I must say, it was entertaining. Wilson does an excellent job at matching the New Atheists in wit and pithy, but pointed, rhetoric. Wilson is debating at their level, and he out wordsmiths them in style. He also does a good job at showing how the New Atheists have simply taken their side of the argument for granted. That they are too intellectually quaggy to check their presuppositions. Their biases. The facts, in many cases. Now, put Wilson against a professional philosopher, say, a Graham Oppy, his style of argument would get him into trouble in a hurry. Wilson is great for the newspaper apologist. The guy who wants the quick and snappy headlines. Short stories that only take a high school education to understand. This isn't intended to be a slam, apologists are needed in all areas of life. My main hope is that young apologists don't stop with books like this. Much as many presuppositionalists ( me included, for a time) did with the Bahsen-Stein debate. If you are stagnant, and you persist in getting into apologetic scuffles, you'll eventually find out that this kind of argumentation has short work made of it.
Besides how the above sounds, I did really enjoy the book. No matter what I have said about Wilson, I have harder words for Harris, his interlocutor.
Why two stars? Because a lot of Wilson's claims are just plain ignorant about what philosophical positions atheists can hold, and justify. I get tired of the Bahnesbot approach to dealing with atheists, viz., "you're just a bag of matter," or "materialism admits of no immaterial entities in your ontology," or "atheists must be moral relativists," etc. In one place Wilson says that belief in a closed physical universe admits of no immaterial entities. Really? I just read an argument to the contrary by Russ Shafer-Landau in his book, Moral Realism: A Defense. Given his arguments, I don't see why not. But then again, I've moved on from archaic presuppositionalism. It doesn't bother me to allow the atheist to have his immaterial entities. Another point is when Wilson constantly claims that the atheist must think that man is simply a bag of chemicals. His thoughts are nothing but neurons firing. Maybe some atheists do believe this. But many atheists who are also physicalists can allow for mental properties to supervene on the physical. Now, this can be critiqued too, but not with the tired attacks Wilson launches.
Why the four? Because, much to my surprise, I really enjoyed this read. I read it between commercials during the playoffs today, and I must say, it was entertaining. Wilson does an excellent job at matching the New Atheists in wit and pithy, but pointed, rhetoric. Wilson is debating at their level, and he out wordsmiths them in style. He also does a good job at showing how the New Atheists have simply taken their side of the argument for granted. That they are too intellectually quaggy to check their presuppositions. Their biases. The facts, in many cases. Now, put Wilson against a professional philosopher, say, a Graham Oppy, his style of argument would get him into trouble in a hurry. Wilson is great for the newspaper apologist. The guy who wants the quick and snappy headlines. Short stories that only take a high school education to understand. This isn't intended to be a slam, apologists are needed in all areas of life. My main hope is that young apologists don't stop with books like this. Much as many presuppositionalists ( me included, for a time) did with the Bahsen-Stein debate. If you are stagnant, and you persist in getting into apologetic scuffles, you'll eventually find out that this kind of argumentation has short work made of it.
Besides how the above sounds, I did really enjoy the book. No matter what I have said about Wilson, I have harder words for Harris, his interlocutor.
March 21, 2010
A point by point counter-argument to Sam Harris' provocative "Letter to a Christian Nation" published a few years ago. Pastor Wilson does a good job exposing some holes in Mr. Harris' logic, but ultimately failed to persuade this non-believer that God and Jesus must be the truth. I appreciate Pastor Wilson's intellectual rigor, and even though the central argument about God's existence is nothing new, it remains a very interesting debate.
July 22, 2011
This is a solid and witty response to the recent book by Sam Harris. We find here a strong example of Douglas Wilson's apologetical style.
The book is direct, and yet still manages to carry a sincere air of respect and civility. Wilson makes strong and penetrating arguments while still keeping his cool and retaining his trademark sense of humor.
Unfortunately, due to the way things work, the primary audience of this book will likely be Christians, so it will be essentially preaching to the choir. That's OK, we Christians need to see a response like this, but it would be great if this book would more frequently find its way into the hands of atheists. I think it would challenge them and encourage them to consider what they've read in Sam Harris' book.
If you are patient enough to read through and seek to understand it, you will find that this is certainly not the stereotypical "fundamentalist" response. I highly recommend you read it and also potentially check out some of Douglas Wilson's other works on apologetics, Reformed theology, etc.
The book is direct, and yet still manages to carry a sincere air of respect and civility. Wilson makes strong and penetrating arguments while still keeping his cool and retaining his trademark sense of humor.
Unfortunately, due to the way things work, the primary audience of this book will likely be Christians, so it will be essentially preaching to the choir. That's OK, we Christians need to see a response like this, but it would be great if this book would more frequently find its way into the hands of atheists. I think it would challenge them and encourage them to consider what they've read in Sam Harris' book.
If you are patient enough to read through and seek to understand it, you will find that this is certainly not the stereotypical "fundamentalist" response. I highly recommend you read it and also potentially check out some of Douglas Wilson's other works on apologetics, Reformed theology, etc.
July 27, 2025
On the plus side of good. Wilson responds to Sam Harris’ “Letter to a Christian Nation” with tact and a bit of a serrated edge. The response is a task made easier by the fact that Harris’ letter was missing most of the necessary components of a well-thought out argument. Wilson pounces on the easy prey and quickly turns it back into its original form.
March 20, 2020
An insightful and justifiably combative response to a flagship book of the new atheists, and thus to the most prominent trends in secular objections to the Christian faith.
September 26, 2024
Wow.
This was just startlingly bad.
Just, well, almost all of it.
I expected to not necessarily agree with the author. But I was hoping to find something thought provoking. Challenging. Interesting.
Instead. Ugh. Just, just no.
Let's start with some compliments. Let's start by pointing out what was good here. Or at least "okay." No. "Good." Let's be positive and go with good.
Wilson isn't a bad writer. He can put together sentences quite well. That might sound like I'm actually taking a jab, but I mean that. Plenty of writers, even plenty with very good ideas, just can't put together a readable page. But Wilson writes pretty well. If you ignore the content, the words flow along nicely and make the reading a pretty pleasant experience.
Also, I liked the opening. Not the foreword, written by another guy. To be honest, the foreword was almost unbearably bad and I guess I should be happy that the other guy didn't write the whole book.
But Wilson's opening was nice. It was honest and kind. When he sympathizes with Sam Harris for the insults and attacks he's received from Christians, he seems quite sincere. He agrees that that's not cool. He recognizes that it's a big problem. I like this line: "Attributing it to human nature doesn't cut it with us because we believe that Christ came to transform human nature." That's nice.
Another sorta kinda good thing. Rather, a thing that I think he shouldn't get too much grief for. Some have noted that his "tone" throughout this book is smug. Or condescending. And, yeah, it totally is. Sometimes, honestly, to the point of distraction. Especially when he's making a particularly horrible point. Nothing is quite so grating as someone saying something utterly stupid and saying it smugly. BUT... don't hold that against him. Sam Harris' book was a straight for the jugular book. I liked it, and I agreed with a whole lot of it (most of it, I guess), but it wasn't at all nice. And so Wilson's tone is pretty understandable. So I admire the spirit. Sort of.
Okay. That's it.
That's all the good stuff to say about this book.
Here's the gist of the bad stuff.
This book is basically a one trick pony.
And the trick sucks.
If you haven't read Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation," don't bother reading this. This is completely, in theory, a response to that book, and so it only makes sense (or doesn't make sense) in relationship to Harris' work. It is supposedly a point by point response to Harris' pretty intense criticism of a certain type of Christian faith (specifically, Biblical literalists who think they have the only Real Truth).
I had hoped that Wilson would really get into Harris' claims. I wanted to see a little back and forth, to be able to read Harris' challenges and then read a nuanced response. Again, I didn't expect to agree with Wilson, by I hoped for real (possibly heated) conversation.
Instead, we got, well...
One of the main thrusts of Harris' book, and the main focus to Wilson's response, is that Christianity of the kind he is attacking is not a moral faith. While many American Christians like to imagine themselves as being the ultimate moral authorities, somehow superior to their secular peers, they in fact, according to Harris, follow a deeply flawed book. Harris points out the many, many very disturbing passages in the Bible that endorse slavery, sexual slavery, the brutal execution of women who have premarital sex, and so on. He rightly notes that we find these things repulsive and immoral. While a liberal interpretation of Biblical passages may allow some Christians to skip past or rationalize these ugly bits, literalist Christians have the problem of worshiping a pretty hateful, bloodthirsty deity.
Wilson's response to this, which he comes back to over and over throughout the book, is essentially to claim that Harris has no standing to make his accusations.
That's it.
Wilson's entire premise, expressed over and over again, is that Harris cannot point out any moral problems with Biblical passages because atheists cannot possibly have moral convictions.
That's it.
For real, that's his whole response. Throw in a bit of window dressing and some clever asides here and there, and that's all he's got.
Wilson believes, and bluntly claims, that all moral reasoning comes out of Christian faith. Outside of his particular faith tradition, there is no consistent concept of "good" or "bad," and hence no one outside of his faith can claim that something is "wrong" without slipping into hypocrisy.
Any moral values an atheist like Harris holds, Wilson says, are simply cultural leftovers from the Christian faith and culture he grew up in and rejected.
In fact, it's not clear that Harris or any others could ever feel anything like "gratitude," as this also comes only from Christ. And they couldn't possibly really even think or have opinions, because, again, that's from God.
So they have no standing.
As soon as they think a thought or feel grateful or have a moral opinion, they are admitting that Christ is Lord, because that's the only way one could think or feel those things.
That basically captures.
It's a deeply offensive stance.
And it's a deeply stupid stance.
Deeply, deeply stupid.
Wilson appears to either be deeply incurious or deeply dishonest.
Either he is so incurious that in spite of his education he has never, ever bothered to explore the ideas of all those moral philosophers from other faiths and no faith, or he is so dishonest that he is aware of them and pretending otherwise.
Is he truly unaware that cultures all over the world developed detailed moral philosophies that did not grow out of Christianity, that were not simply "cultural leftovers" from the one True Religion? Is he unaware of Buddhist and Hindu thought? Of Native American and African morality? Does he think that all of these cultures were just lawless, moral-free cesspools before Christians arrived?
Is he unaware of Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and French Existentialism and Utilitarianism?
He may not agree with all the specifics of those other faiths and worldviews, but his inability to even acknowledge that people of no faith or other faiths could care about morality, feel gratitude, and find meaning in life is pretty pathetic.
There's other stuff in here. None of it is good.
It's wicked creepy when he says that he has no objection to the notion of executing your daughter if you discover she's not a virgin on her wedding night. Like, that's a simple one. He wholeheartedly embraces it.
He doesn't bat in eye in explaining that there's nothing wrong with God sending floods to kill off a bunch of poor people in New Orleans (and he clarifies that he doesn't believe that God didn't interview, but actually actively killed them; he calls the death and destruction "holy, righteous and good"). God, he says, can dispose of creation as he sees fit.
He's so comfortable with the idea of God disposing of his creation as he sees fit that one could argue that it is not Harris, but rather Wilson, who has no grounding to make any claims about morality.
There's not room to get into it here, but this gets into some interesting theological questions that I remember sparking all kinds of discussion back in my Theology/Philosophy college days.
What does it mean to say that God is "good?"
Does God do A and not B (and demand the same of us) because A and B are Good, or are A and B Good because God does them?
In Wilson's view, anything that God does is by definition Good.
Which ultimately takes the meaning out of the word "good."
In Wilson's view, God is God. If God commanded that we abort all babies at 8 months, that would be fine. If God demanded that we torture and kill kittens, that would be great.
"Good" as a word loses all meaning in Wilson's view, leaving him no standing to lecture anyone on morality. He worships the biggest, strongest Being in the neighborhood. If that Being is a monster, that's irrelevant. It's the Bigness that draws him in.
Finally, Wilson does nothing at all to address Harris' claims that faith is irrational. I expected some sort of defense of the faith, some sort of "we believe because..." That doesn't come in at all, and that's too bad. Honestly, there is really no "we believe because" argument that I have ever found remotely compelling, but I hoped to read something good.
Instead of giving any explanation of why Harris or anyone else should believe in his faith, Wilson repeatedly argues points by taking the faith (and the veracity of every word in the Bible) as a given. He says that Christian faith is scientific because when Peter heard that Jesus had risen he immediately ran to investigate, as any scientist would do. But, well, the whole point is that the atheist doesn't believe that Peter did that, or doesn't believe Peter's account. It's not Peter's investigation that's being questioned, it's your blind faith in that. And so on. So forth.
All in all, a pretty terrible book.
At the end, he says he'd totally love to have a beer with Harris, however much they might disagree.
That's all cute and sweet. But I have a confession.
It would be deeply disturbing to me to sit and have a beer with a guy like Wilson.
I would not want him as a neighbor.
There's no way I'd want him anywhere near my children.
I can't think of a person who celebrates the destruction of innocent lives in natural disasters, who is perfectly comfortable with the idea of killing non-virginal brides on their wedding night, and who is not too terribly bothered by slavery (he has elsewhere suggested that Southern slavery in the US helped develop genuine affection between races for the first time in history) as anything other than a moral monster.
If his religion made him that way, it's a pretty horrific religion.
He says of Harris that Harris is probably better than his terrible ideas.
Given all the truly awesome Christians I've met, I'd have to see that Wilson is much, much worse than his supposed faith.
This was just startlingly bad.
Just, well, almost all of it.
I expected to not necessarily agree with the author. But I was hoping to find something thought provoking. Challenging. Interesting.
Instead. Ugh. Just, just no.
Let's start with some compliments. Let's start by pointing out what was good here. Or at least "okay." No. "Good." Let's be positive and go with good.
Wilson isn't a bad writer. He can put together sentences quite well. That might sound like I'm actually taking a jab, but I mean that. Plenty of writers, even plenty with very good ideas, just can't put together a readable page. But Wilson writes pretty well. If you ignore the content, the words flow along nicely and make the reading a pretty pleasant experience.
Also, I liked the opening. Not the foreword, written by another guy. To be honest, the foreword was almost unbearably bad and I guess I should be happy that the other guy didn't write the whole book.
But Wilson's opening was nice. It was honest and kind. When he sympathizes with Sam Harris for the insults and attacks he's received from Christians, he seems quite sincere. He agrees that that's not cool. He recognizes that it's a big problem. I like this line: "Attributing it to human nature doesn't cut it with us because we believe that Christ came to transform human nature." That's nice.
Another sorta kinda good thing. Rather, a thing that I think he shouldn't get too much grief for. Some have noted that his "tone" throughout this book is smug. Or condescending. And, yeah, it totally is. Sometimes, honestly, to the point of distraction. Especially when he's making a particularly horrible point. Nothing is quite so grating as someone saying something utterly stupid and saying it smugly. BUT... don't hold that against him. Sam Harris' book was a straight for the jugular book. I liked it, and I agreed with a whole lot of it (most of it, I guess), but it wasn't at all nice. And so Wilson's tone is pretty understandable. So I admire the spirit. Sort of.
Okay. That's it.
That's all the good stuff to say about this book.
Here's the gist of the bad stuff.
This book is basically a one trick pony.
And the trick sucks.
If you haven't read Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation," don't bother reading this. This is completely, in theory, a response to that book, and so it only makes sense (or doesn't make sense) in relationship to Harris' work. It is supposedly a point by point response to Harris' pretty intense criticism of a certain type of Christian faith (specifically, Biblical literalists who think they have the only Real Truth).
I had hoped that Wilson would really get into Harris' claims. I wanted to see a little back and forth, to be able to read Harris' challenges and then read a nuanced response. Again, I didn't expect to agree with Wilson, by I hoped for real (possibly heated) conversation.
Instead, we got, well...
One of the main thrusts of Harris' book, and the main focus to Wilson's response, is that Christianity of the kind he is attacking is not a moral faith. While many American Christians like to imagine themselves as being the ultimate moral authorities, somehow superior to their secular peers, they in fact, according to Harris, follow a deeply flawed book. Harris points out the many, many very disturbing passages in the Bible that endorse slavery, sexual slavery, the brutal execution of women who have premarital sex, and so on. He rightly notes that we find these things repulsive and immoral. While a liberal interpretation of Biblical passages may allow some Christians to skip past or rationalize these ugly bits, literalist Christians have the problem of worshiping a pretty hateful, bloodthirsty deity.
Wilson's response to this, which he comes back to over and over throughout the book, is essentially to claim that Harris has no standing to make his accusations.
That's it.
Wilson's entire premise, expressed over and over again, is that Harris cannot point out any moral problems with Biblical passages because atheists cannot possibly have moral convictions.
That's it.
For real, that's his whole response. Throw in a bit of window dressing and some clever asides here and there, and that's all he's got.
Wilson believes, and bluntly claims, that all moral reasoning comes out of Christian faith. Outside of his particular faith tradition, there is no consistent concept of "good" or "bad," and hence no one outside of his faith can claim that something is "wrong" without slipping into hypocrisy.
Any moral values an atheist like Harris holds, Wilson says, are simply cultural leftovers from the Christian faith and culture he grew up in and rejected.
In fact, it's not clear that Harris or any others could ever feel anything like "gratitude," as this also comes only from Christ. And they couldn't possibly really even think or have opinions, because, again, that's from God.
So they have no standing.
As soon as they think a thought or feel grateful or have a moral opinion, they are admitting that Christ is Lord, because that's the only way one could think or feel those things.
That basically captures.
It's a deeply offensive stance.
And it's a deeply stupid stance.
Deeply, deeply stupid.
Wilson appears to either be deeply incurious or deeply dishonest.
Either he is so incurious that in spite of his education he has never, ever bothered to explore the ideas of all those moral philosophers from other faiths and no faith, or he is so dishonest that he is aware of them and pretending otherwise.
Is he truly unaware that cultures all over the world developed detailed moral philosophies that did not grow out of Christianity, that were not simply "cultural leftovers" from the one True Religion? Is he unaware of Buddhist and Hindu thought? Of Native American and African morality? Does he think that all of these cultures were just lawless, moral-free cesspools before Christians arrived?
Is he unaware of Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and French Existentialism and Utilitarianism?
He may not agree with all the specifics of those other faiths and worldviews, but his inability to even acknowledge that people of no faith or other faiths could care about morality, feel gratitude, and find meaning in life is pretty pathetic.
There's other stuff in here. None of it is good.
It's wicked creepy when he says that he has no objection to the notion of executing your daughter if you discover she's not a virgin on her wedding night. Like, that's a simple one. He wholeheartedly embraces it.
He doesn't bat in eye in explaining that there's nothing wrong with God sending floods to kill off a bunch of poor people in New Orleans (and he clarifies that he doesn't believe that God didn't interview, but actually actively killed them; he calls the death and destruction "holy, righteous and good"). God, he says, can dispose of creation as he sees fit.
He's so comfortable with the idea of God disposing of his creation as he sees fit that one could argue that it is not Harris, but rather Wilson, who has no grounding to make any claims about morality.
There's not room to get into it here, but this gets into some interesting theological questions that I remember sparking all kinds of discussion back in my Theology/Philosophy college days.
What does it mean to say that God is "good?"
Does God do A and not B (and demand the same of us) because A and B are Good, or are A and B Good because God does them?
In Wilson's view, anything that God does is by definition Good.
Which ultimately takes the meaning out of the word "good."
In Wilson's view, God is God. If God commanded that we abort all babies at 8 months, that would be fine. If God demanded that we torture and kill kittens, that would be great.
"Good" as a word loses all meaning in Wilson's view, leaving him no standing to lecture anyone on morality. He worships the biggest, strongest Being in the neighborhood. If that Being is a monster, that's irrelevant. It's the Bigness that draws him in.
Finally, Wilson does nothing at all to address Harris' claims that faith is irrational. I expected some sort of defense of the faith, some sort of "we believe because..." That doesn't come in at all, and that's too bad. Honestly, there is really no "we believe because" argument that I have ever found remotely compelling, but I hoped to read something good.
Instead of giving any explanation of why Harris or anyone else should believe in his faith, Wilson repeatedly argues points by taking the faith (and the veracity of every word in the Bible) as a given. He says that Christian faith is scientific because when Peter heard that Jesus had risen he immediately ran to investigate, as any scientist would do. But, well, the whole point is that the atheist doesn't believe that Peter did that, or doesn't believe Peter's account. It's not Peter's investigation that's being questioned, it's your blind faith in that. And so on. So forth.
All in all, a pretty terrible book.
At the end, he says he'd totally love to have a beer with Harris, however much they might disagree.
That's all cute and sweet. But I have a confession.
It would be deeply disturbing to me to sit and have a beer with a guy like Wilson.
I would not want him as a neighbor.
There's no way I'd want him anywhere near my children.
I can't think of a person who celebrates the destruction of innocent lives in natural disasters, who is perfectly comfortable with the idea of killing non-virginal brides on their wedding night, and who is not too terribly bothered by slavery (he has elsewhere suggested that Southern slavery in the US helped develop genuine affection between races for the first time in history) as anything other than a moral monster.
If his religion made him that way, it's a pretty horrific religion.
He says of Harris that Harris is probably better than his terrible ideas.
Given all the truly awesome Christians I've met, I'd have to see that Wilson is much, much worse than his supposed faith.
March 29, 2023
Wilson fundamentally does not understand the position he is arguing against and spends his entire book arguing with claims that Harris never made. The entire crux of the book is that “if you are an atheist, then you cannot judge any action to be good or bad, because the only standards of good and bad that exist come from the Bible”, which is not a logically-sound argument and misrepresents Harris’s position. There are standards of morality that exist independent of the contents of the Bible (that is not to say there is no overlap in the contents of these standards. It is to say that they have arisen in different times and places from different thinkers), and there are evolutionary theories as to how and why they might have come to be. For Wilson not to know that demonstrates his own ignorance in the debate.
February 5, 2014
The book is pretty well written. The response is a brief but substantive to reply Sam Harris's book. He does not address Harris point for point but rather attack's Harris's underlying philosophical assumptions. He does so cogently but some may be looking for a point for point response to Harris. I thought this book achieved it's goal and was very approachable (as was Harris's book). I'd highly recommend them as a pair.
May 30, 2018
I was looking forward to reading a scholarly rebuttal to Harris’ great book, but this fell far short. The main argument Wilson utilizes is multiple versions of “you’re just a bunch of chemical reactions” (paraphrasing) and utilizes this point to argue that atheists can not possibly have any ethical or moral thought, or practically any sentient thought whatsoever. Highly disappointed that this is what I spent hours reading.
March 9, 2019
Even granting that these were originally blog posts turned into a book, it is very clear Wilson is outgunned by a man like Christopher Hitchens, amply demonstrated by their mutual documentary Collision (one not need be a fan of Hitchens to see this). Wilson's tactic is to attempt a Van Tillian defense of Christianity by claiming secular humanism has no absolute standards for ethics or morality. The book largely fails to do much but permit Wilson some opportunity for witty comments.
May 8, 2011
It was more fun to read it without having read the original atheist book. Having read the atheist book that prompted it does not detract, and I highly recommend to anyone looking for a spirited response to Harris' ranting.
February 13, 2009
Great response to Harris' book. Doug is definitely a gifted apologist for the faith.
June 15, 2009
If you want to know how to respond to nonbelievers without getting squeaky, get a hold of this. Especially good when read with Letter to a Christian Nation in the other hand.
February 3, 2014
Typical Wilson: brilliant.
July 18, 2019
The good ol' "By what standard?" argument. They never can answer it.
April 14, 2008
Best if read alternating chapters with Harris' book, Harris first, then Wilson.
January 27, 2021
Som some geezer named Sam Harris, who is apparently one of these modern atheists who tell Christians off for holding big conferences and selling their wares whilst giving emotional speeches, whilst holding conferences, selling his wares and giving emotional speeches.
Anyway Harris wrote some book which Wilsoin took umbrage with and so Wilson responds with this book.
You don't really need to read the Harris book to get the gist of what he was banging on about.
It's all been said before and probably better written as well.
What I will never understand is why people write books about things they don't believe in - Harris would be better served telling us what he does believe - Wilson does a good discussion on Christianity ion the mean time - some would call it a defence of the faith, I Dion't think the faith needs defending but anyway if it encourages its to remain in and grow in Christ then it does its work.
Wo]ill Harris ever read it? Maybe.
Does it matter? Not really apart from his own soul I guess.
Have a read, but there are better ways t learn about Christianity, unless you really want to see how he responds to Harris.
Anyway Harris wrote some book which Wilsoin took umbrage with and so Wilson responds with this book.
You don't really need to read the Harris book to get the gist of what he was banging on about.
It's all been said before and probably better written as well.
What I will never understand is why people write books about things they don't believe in - Harris would be better served telling us what he does believe - Wilson does a good discussion on Christianity ion the mean time - some would call it a defence of the faith, I Dion't think the faith needs defending but anyway if it encourages its to remain in and grow in Christ then it does its work.
Wo]ill Harris ever read it? Maybe.
Does it matter? Not really apart from his own soul I guess.
Have a read, but there are better ways t learn about Christianity, unless you really want to see how he responds to Harris.
April 18, 2024
Really good stuff here. Wilson says many of the things you wish to scream while reading Harris. Harris just yells about Christianity for 100 pages and states that you’re a reprehensible idiot if you disagree. Would appreciate an actual argument or two.
A few memorable summaries/responses (for me to revisit):
1. “I am merely atheist toward one more god than Christians.” - A Trout in the Punch Bowl: saying Smith did it, Jones did it, or saying it evolved into the bowl randomly are wildly different claims in totally different categories (p. 12).
2. “Morality is objective and based in pleasure as good and pain as bad. Love is better than hatred.” - Tin Foil Ice Cream: since more people enjoy vanilla ice cream over ice cream with chunks of tinfoil in it, it doesn’t mean vanilla is morally better. Atheistic morality is just preference (p. 30).
3. “Pleasure is better than pain.” - The Great Jacuzzi of Consumerism: if I am comfortable and enjoying the luxuries of America (pleasure), how could I justify going through all the pain of moving to Africa to relieve others’ suffering? My nerve bundle doesn’t care (p. 37).
A few memorable summaries/responses (for me to revisit):
1. “I am merely atheist toward one more god than Christians.” - A Trout in the Punch Bowl: saying Smith did it, Jones did it, or saying it evolved into the bowl randomly are wildly different claims in totally different categories (p. 12).
2. “Morality is objective and based in pleasure as good and pain as bad. Love is better than hatred.” - Tin Foil Ice Cream: since more people enjoy vanilla ice cream over ice cream with chunks of tinfoil in it, it doesn’t mean vanilla is morally better. Atheistic morality is just preference (p. 30).
3. “Pleasure is better than pain.” - The Great Jacuzzi of Consumerism: if I am comfortable and enjoying the luxuries of America (pleasure), how could I justify going through all the pain of moving to Africa to relieve others’ suffering? My nerve bundle doesn’t care (p. 37).
July 7, 2023
A general Doug Wilson content review: "Doug Wilson is my favorite author to read that in the span of 2 pages makes me utter, that is brilliant, and then a moment later throw the book across the room shouting, that's absurd. I'm a better thinker when he articulates what I believe better then I can and when I disagree with him and have to get my arguments put together to refute him. He is my favorite Evangelical "Biblicist" (that's a compliment not a slight) that just doesn't care about looking like a fool for Christ. His approach can easily leave him looking like a fool -- when in reality, at moments, he is aiming for paradigm level thinking. He clearly enjoys, in much of his work, not only avoiding framing his words in the most "agreeable" and "accepted" way possible, but actively finding the most shocking and disorienting way to surprise his audience into not knowing what to think. Along the way, Wilson always tends to drop a gem or two of both wordsmithery and profound critique."
July 24, 2022
Douglas Wilson has thoughtfully, intellectually and biblically responded to Sam Harris's book, Letter to a Christian Nation, bringing God's truth to bear over his atheistic claims. Well worth reading, even in chunks, as I did. There is a lot to digest - but it's good!
January 21, 2026
This is a takedown. Sam Harris’ efforts are efficiently demolished, especially at the presuppositional level. There is a wittiness to the writing that makes this critique enjoyable to read. Short and to the point. A good exercise in worldview critique
May 28, 2018
This was a very hard book to read. I was really looking forward to this response and was very disappointed. I just think he’s not the best writer and it could have been delivered with more clarity.
Read
November 18, 2019Very Good
January 2, 2021
Good solid response to Harris' original broadside against Christianity.
March 11, 2022
This book clearly shows how atheists always argue morality with a Christian mindset and can never show us how to live morally within an atheistic worldview.
September 17, 2023
Great. Easy to understand and convincing
February 10, 2025
A good response to atheistic texts in opposition to Christianity. However, it was a bit hard to understand his arguments.
February 15, 2026
The forward was better than the book. But a more "on point" discussion than Zacharias's "The End of Reason."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews