Is Christianity Good for the World?

by Douglas Wilson, Christopher Hitchens, Jonah Goldberg (Contributor)

The gloves come off in this electric exchange, originally hosted by Christianity Today , as leading atheist Christopher Hitchens (author of God Is Not Great ) and Christian apologist Douglas Wilson (author of Letter from a Christian Citizen ) go head-to-head on this divisive question. The result is entertaining and provocative—a glimpse into the ongoing debate.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Theology, Atheism, Christianity, Christian

67 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2008

About the author

I write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.

Reviews

[Amy · Rating 1 out of 5]

2025 Review
Here is the deal. If I'd have read this book in 2010 when I first marked it as to-read, you would today see a glowing and probably 5 star review. But it is 2025, I am a little more discriminating, and I found this book absolutely frustrating.
I love the idea of a well-known atheist and a Christian apologist actually taking the gloves off and "debating" the relative merits of Christianity. In theory, that's an interesting and honest conversation I'd love to see.
In reality, this book feels more like a hand-slapping sissy fight than a bare knuckled brawl. It barely manages to avoid name calling. 72 pages is not enough space to tackle any deep questions at length, and the brief chapters result in only the most cursory of responses. (Mostly along the lines "you didn't answer my question" from Doug Wilson, which I can't even agree with because I do think Hitchens did answer eventually to the extent he rated what was being asked.) Fundamentally, the two seemed to be talking on two different wavelengths, and part of the biggest frustration was the lack of clear foundational terms.
As far as this argument goes, I agree with Doug Wilson, but I held him to a higher standard accordingly. I found his sections particularly frustrating. In fact, my notes throughout the book rapidly descended from: "Significant use of rhetorical questions but doesn't actually put forward any affirmative arguments" to "brooooooooo" "bruh" "BRO READ THE ROOM."
You can see him almost waiting for the applause as he randomly shoehorns in a gospel message at the end.
But don't get me wrong--Hitchens isn't much better. He is a better writer. But his own glee prevents him from taking his opponent too seriously and it shows.
I'm tempted to give this book two stars because the concept is cool. But for the sake of humanity and philosophical discourse in general, I sure hope this has been done better elsewhere!

2010 Pre-Review
I can not wait to read this book!!! We are watching the movie based off it in youth group, and so far it has been fantastic.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Latest salvo in the New Atheism saga. This is a debate between Hitchens (atheist) and Wilson (Christian). Both are good rhetoricians, chuckles will accompany a read of this book. Wilson isn't a sophisticated apologist or philosopher. Hitchens is neither for his side. Both would have troubles if they faced the best from the opposing side. But as far as this debate goes, Hitchens comes off looking like a complete hack. Seemingly unable to "get" the question Wilson repeatedly poses. But, "questions" are about as far as it goes. The essence of Wilson's argument seems to consist in amusing (admittedly) mockery of the weakest forms of the positions he attacks, viz., evolutionary naturalism, naturalistic determinism, anthropological physicalism (though this language is absent from the text of the book), and asking for the basis of Hitchens's moral indictments and judgments. Of course Hitchens is absolutely clueless as how to respond, demonstrating massive lacunas in his "superior" intellect. He eventually claims that "morality evolved." This is met by more ridicule and mockery from Wilson, but the more sophisticated versions of evolutionary morality seem to escape Wilson's critical eye. Though Wilson demonstrates that Hitchens is surely not the intellectual threat to Christianity that he supposes, despite what ignorant teenage atheists might tell him, he also demonstrates the apologetic brick wall many presuppositionalists seem to have hit. This book is for (a) those who enjoy good rhetoric, (b) New Atheists who think Hitchens has dealt religion a death blow, (c) a good bathroom read. It is not for those who (d) want a strong or sophisticated defense of Christian theism, (e) those who want a good defense (or offense) of atheological presuppositions, and (f) those who want a philosophically rigorous and critical analysis of those positions mentioned above after "viz".

So, what do people usually want to know about "debate" books? "Who won?" of course. Okay, Wilson won, hands down. But, that's due more to the fact that Hitchens just doesn't have a clue in matters of philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, and Christian theology, than it is an indicator of Wilson's superior apologetic prowess.

[Rod Horncastle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Before someone dares debate an issue like: Is Christianity Good For The World - first one must explain to Mr. Hitchens what exactly Christianity is (He still doesn't seem to know). Therefore much of this chat is a waste of time. Even though Douglas Wilson puts in a noble effort.

I did find it fun that: In order to get to the root of this problem, you don't even have to read the Christian defense - just observing Hitchens drunken ramblings (Is it really wrong for me to assume he's drunk? Nah. What are the odds?) we can see how atheism is seriously missing the point.

Here's a bit of fun.
The real problem with having Hitchens discuss anything that uses the word "Good" is - what is his understanding of Good? And here's my thought, Hitchens complains (and probably makes a living doing it...poorly I might add) that something isn't good based on His? His What? Hitchens is a chap who writes books about Nuns (who at least attempt to help people...) and in his typical innuendo macho-bully atheist (probably drunk? Odds again?) effort call it "The missionary Position - Mother Teresa in Theory And Practice."
Whether Nun Teresa is perfect or not is not as important as what this book tells us about Hitchens and atheism.

So rather than asking Is Christianity Good For The World? WE should be asking: Is anything that Mr. Hitchens ever done Good For the World? Yes, He's all about Goodness and what's best for humanity. What brand of cigarettes killed him exactly? Who cares! Best to do the opposite of every example Hitchen's proudly boasted.
We do miss the old loudmouth though - He was great for Christianity. Made us all look really good in comparison.

I do enjoy watching Hitchens put His foot in his mouth...and then Chomp! Here's a fun example:
"You and I have no idea what it is like to be a sociopath-someone who does not care about other people...someone who derives actual delight from inflicting misery on others."

Hmmm? So what did you call that book about Mother Teresa? Did that inflict any misery on her? Didn't think that through now did. Of course not - Is that not why he's so insanely popular amongst militant internet atheists - they delight in inflicting misery on anyone who actually has a standard of good.

But later on down that page Hitchy boy says:
"Indeed, you apparently adopt the immoral and suicidal doctrine that advocates forgiveness for those who would destroy us. Please take care NOT to forgive my enemies, or the enemies of society."

Wow, this tells us alot about Hitchens and his goodness, or lack of any forgiveness for that matter. Apparently Hitchens is perfect. (I think Hitchens proved he was very successful at mostly destroying himself. Watch what you put in your mouth and lungs buddy - it might not be GOOD for you.
Anyway, the real point of this is that Hitchens thinks it's okay to annihilate anyone that HE DEEMS a danger to society or his family.

Hitchy quote: "I do not deduce peaceful coexistence from that observation and do not want you being tender to them when it is my or my family's life that is at stake."

Fair enough, I totally agree. The only problem is that ONCE AGAIN Hitchens didn't think this through. (has he EVER???) This is exactly what the God of the Bible did in the Flood account and later with the Wars of Israel: God protected HIS FAMILY (YES, He calls His human children adopted) and he removed any evil that would upset the plan of salvation for mankind (God's children anyway...).
Of course Hitchens says this is a horrible evil when God does it - but perfectly GOOD according to drunken atheist standards regarding his (pause to put his Cigarette or Cigar into his mouth, who cares really, and then shake it in an ashtray, down...) family and personal amazing self-righteous SELF.

What a fun book though. Good for Christians and maybe a select atheist or two. But mostly they'll be too busy drooling over Hitchen's classic boasts - and assume He won because he was talking. Blind faith indeed.
But by the end of the Book: Hitchens still fails to properly address Wilson's main point: How does an atheist define Good? Apparently the answer is in the tobacco and Alcohol - and Hitchen's didn't feel like sharing. Thank God! And more specifically Jesus our Savior.

Is it bad for me to mock Christopher? Probably - but I do it to defend a special Nun who was much too polite to kick somebody deserving in the... :cO
I'm not a fan of Catholic Nuns exactly - but it's safe to say she spent her life doing GOOD as best she understood it against the odds.

[Craig · Rating 1 out of 5]

Imagine a highly condensed, unedited version of God is not Great. It doesn't contain the highly polished prose, the impactful arguments, or much of the smarmy wit that makes Hitchens a joy to read, but it still contains enough to get some basic points across. Now imagine this poor facsimile of the book interspersed with the trifling prattle of an extremely confident believer.

Wilson wheels out every Christian's favorite decrepit chestnuts, including "But if there's no god then bad people don't get punished like I think they should," "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (obviously because magic man done it), "Without god, even this very argument we're having is pointless because nothing has any meaning," and even "Where do non-religious folk get their morals?" (the same place religious folk do, and luckily for all of us, it sure ain't the bible). In the final section when Wilson begins with the standard line about how Hitchens should come back to fold and forgive those who caused him to leave the church (because surely it's not possible that Hitchens simply looked at the teachings and decided they were nonsense), I had had enough. This stuff is neither fun to read nor enlightening. The best thing about this book is its brevity.

[Fëalórin · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was less about whether Christianity is good for the world and more about Hitchens' and Wilson's criticisms of each other's worldviews—less constructive discussion and more arguing.

On the upside, however, Hitchens and Wilson were very respectful of each other in spite of their disagreements, which I appreciated immensely.

[Nadja · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not an easy read, but simply brilliant.

[Lucas Bragança · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eu fico impressionado com o quanto se pode aprender em um livro de 70 páginas onde metade é escrito por um ateu atacando o cristianismo! Quer saber? Leia este livro.

[Jeremy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pastor Doug Wilson takes on the formidable atheist Christopher Hitchens in a back-and-forth discussion. This is a short book, and both writers are very talented and make salient points. But I ultimately thought that Wilson carried the day. He's funnier, too. If you're interested in more, their discussion turned into a movie, Collision .

[Caleb M. Powers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wilson absolutely demolishes Hitchens, all the while Hitchens talks to himself.

[Andrew Blok]

I don't know why I put this book on hold at the library, but I was surprised at how short it was when it arrived. After finishing it, I'm glad it was. That's not to say it was a bad book or uninteresting. Well, actually I'll say it was uninteresting to me.

I'm pretty bored of this debate, I think. If I had read this book when it had come out, or even seven or eight years ago, I'd probably be really into it. Also, I think it would be more interesting to see the debate in person and not in correspondence form. Misunderstandings take too long to iron out and both writers I think were a little too proud of their take downs.

My biggest gripe, though, is that neither fully addressed the prompt. Instead of saying if Christianity was good for the world, they spent more time talking about whether or not Christopher Hitchens was a sinner in need of repentance with an incoherent view or morality (this was Wilson's argument) or whether Douglas Wilson was a delusional busybody who unfairly lords his religion over others (this was Hitchens's). We never really got to the question, except maybe Hitchens's first essay. A better title might have been "I think Christopher Hitchens is leading us to a nihilistic free-for-all, while I think Douglas Wilson is a delusional morality snob. Let's talk about it."

[Winnie Thornton · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to see a fight where bare knuckles meet the same nose over and over, if you want to watch a strategist locate the tipping point again and again, if you want to admire the wit who can spot the rug his opponent is standing on and jerk it out from under him every time--then read this and watch Wilson bring Hitchens to his knees. The most amazing thing, however, and the most beautiful thing is that Wilson does this in order to present Hitchens with gospel grace, and he does it with the humility and selfless love that wants to share what he has been given. And we can only pray that those knees on which we leave Hitchens were the knees of repentance.

[Saul W · Rating 3 out of 5]

P G Wodehouse fan meetup.

[Shea Stacy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Collision is a film of these two debating in person and is one of my favorite documentaries so when this was added to Canon+ I thought I'd make a it a quick listen.
Hitchens really is unfairly matched on the topic here. The issue with the debate is that Hitchens is attacking a certain kind of Christian (Jerry Falwell is mentioned several times) and somewhat the biblical story as immoral. The issue is that Wilson and the reformed faith is far more robust than the person that Christopher has in mind when he thinks of a "Christian." Furthermore he doesn't seem to understand that there are explanations for the bible stories he takes issue with but they require an understanding of the whole scripture and the worldview of that scripture to be able to see it. He wants to step part way into that world and attack a piece of it without bothering to understand the whole.

Now obviously I come to this debate with my own presuppositions so it was unlikely that I'd find anything Christopher had to say compelling... spoiler alert, I did not. But was is sad in this exchange is that he consistently seems to miss the point of Doug's arguments which leaves quite a bit wanting in the moving of the argument forward.
But truly the highlight of the book is Doug sharing the gospel at the end. Both in the way he broadly shares the gospel but also in the specific approach he takes to a baptized apostate in Hitchens who refuses to be thankful to the God who created Him. For that alone the book is a worth the read. But Collision is a better hour+ spend than the book.

[Morgan Moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. I don't need to say more . . . but I sure will.

It seems to me that most of the negative reviews on this book are due to the fact that Wilson (the Christian apologist) doesn't provide Christians a pack of ammo (a list of evidence for God's existence) to load their evangelistic firearms. And that's just the point of this book. This debate was not to argue God's existence; Wilson assumes that immediately. The point is to debate if Christianity is true, is it good for the world? Put simply, it teaches you to think critically. Wilson demonstrates how Hitchens (the atheist) has no moral ground to stand on. If God doesn't exist, then who makes the rules? Hitchens? What gives him the authority? What gives him the right? Hitchens consistently avoids Wilson's question, which causes the constant "dodging" throughout the debate that some reviewers complain about. It isn't until the end that Hitchens finally addresses the question and, naturally, fails to answer. However, all the "dodging" provides so much information for us readers. Wilson demonstrates how simple critical thinking can immediately deduct the holes in atheistic arguments and destroy them, pointing us all back to God.

In a nutshell, read this book. I don't care if you don't like intellectual banter on literature, philosophy, and theology. Read it anyway. And remember that Christianity isn't just good for the world. It's for the world.

[Noah Calcagno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Witty dialogue, but overall just okay.

[Seth Goodale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glad Canon+ released this. I have been wanting to read this book for awhile now.

It is obvious that Wilson beat Hitchens here, though both made great points.

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good read. Both Wilson and Hitchens have a wonderful writing style so this was an enjoyable read. I think Hitchens didn't really understand Wilson's argument. It would have been great to see Hitchens really deal with what Wilson was saying. There were some good barbs both directions. The movie Collision is also great. I recommend that resource for those who haven't seen it yet.

[Dan Glover · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone buying this book and looking for an exhaustive, facts-and-figures filled debate between a Christian and an atheist over the merits of the Christian faith will likely be disappointed. This exchange was originally a multi-part internet debate hosted by Christianity Today which was likely a more fitting medium for this level of exchange. However, this book does have its merits. For one, it is short. Many people are frightened away from large volumes on this subject but this takes the form of letters and responses written back and forth between Hitchens and Wilson and there is an economy of words. The language is colourful and edgy, though neither one descends to the level of petty playground insults such as one finds in Richard Dawkins' vitriol. One gets the sense that the opponents in this debate at least respect each other as people (Wilson respects Hitchens because he is a fellow man made in God's image and Hitchens respects Wilson because he is a pastor/apologist who actually believes and lives what the Bible says rather than attempting to explain the perceived "nasty bits" away...and they both like P.G. Wodehouse). However, no where does one get the sense that these two men are in any danger of respecting each other's positions.

For Christians, this is a good example of presuppositional apologetics in active use with a hostile critic. Where Hitchens points out some of the admittedly wicked things done throughout history in the name of Christianity and the God of the Bible as though this were a slam dunk argument, Wilson admits that the church has done much wrong but counters with the fact that in Hitchens' godless universe, there is no basis for judging such actions of the church as "bad" or "evil". With no God who stands above humanity and to whom people must eventually answer, Wilson shows that there is no standard of right and good and that there is only whatever morality any person or group of people feel like self-imposing and no one version of morality can therefore be superior to any other. Wilson goes straight at Hitchens' assumptions of universal morality and exposes the fact that Hitchens' anti-theist worldview has no rational grounds for morality of any kind. No one action can truly be said to be better than another. In a purely material universe devoid of God all action and thought just boils down to chemicals percolating in the brain. Hitchens doesn't seem to understand Wilson's point here, objecting that atheists can be moral people, which Wilson readily admits. Wilson simply says that to whatever degree an atheist is a "good" moral person and expects the same of others, they are inconsistent with their own view of the nature of reality. That Hitchens doesn't understand Wilson's point is both frustrating and perhaps revealing. One finishes the book wishing to have heard an actual response by Hitchens to Wilson's main argument. For Christians, this is a good example of how to go straight to the atheist's presuppositions and show how their own worldview is self contradictory and inconsistent. For non-Christians, this presents a good challenge in that one of modern atheism's most vocal and eloquent proponents doesn't seem to understand the untenable nature of his own position.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent debate between the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens and the Christian theologian Douglas Wilson. Both sides gave interesting and well-thought arguments about Christianity, but in my humble opinion Douglas Wilson won the debate in argument and courtesy. Though Hitchens is a very eloquent speaker, his arguments on morality and other topics are not sound enough to stand on. Wilson effectively asked questions that Hitchens could give only partial answers to and also gave excellent answers to Hitchens’s questions. Wilson brought out a very good point which Hitchens could not really counter. It is this: if there is no God, what is meaningful in life? Everything has no meaning without the existence of God. If there is no God, who cares about morality? There will be no judge after death to determine our actions. If there is no God, why should any person do an ounce of good in this world? There is no purpose for good without God. Why should people continue to live if there is no God? Without God, life is nothing.

[Mary S · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was cute. Upon reading it I pictured two older gentlemen,dressed in tweeds, settled into the snug at their local. Maybe they were two brothers, or two old colleagues who have existed side by side for years and years. You know exactly what each will say -- heck, they know what each other will say. The book reads like two well worn paths up the same mountain. The paths cross and diverge, but never seem to reach the summit. Another day, another polite trudge up the slope. I was left asking "what's the point", since I'll never get to the summit and take in the view.

However, I gave this book three stars for trying. Athletes often do form drills to get them in shape for a bigger and more important competition. This debate reads a bit like a form drill -- kind of philosophical fartleks -- you don't use this technique in competition, but it helps build the big guns for the big day.

Too bad for the reader that this book wasn't an example of a "big day".

[Rebecca Newman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyable to read.

It is interesting to note, when reading the other reviews on this book, that atheists seem to all agree Hitchens "won" the debate hand's down and Christians are all duly impressed with how well Wilson knocked it out of the park. I fall into the latter category, proud that not only can a Christian defend the faith logically and succinctly but also with wit and patience and humor. No stodgy Christian here.

Hitchens does what any atheist MUST do and that is, evade the first and foremost question of where an atheists gets his/her morals. But one thing I found interesting about Hitchen's view is that he correlates God with a tyrannical marionette show the likes of 1984. It had never occurred to me that anyone would/could conceivably think of God as such but it is helpful for me to realize that this is a possible philosophy. Also, how to address it.

Bravo, Doug Wilson.

[Steve Dustcircle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I admire Christopher Hitchens and his views on religion, and I enjoy a great debate, so I acquired this small book. There is some philosophical addresses, as well as some biblical text conversation, but I felt that after reading this book, I didn't learn much from either side.

Half of the responses are repeats of the questions, with some light jabs, and a slightly- off-topic response, never fully addressing what was said prior. There was dancing with words, and both debaters never really left me feeling like I gt a good viewing.

As with most Christian-hosted debates, the book starts with Hitchens and ends with Wilson, giving it an air of the religionist ending the conversation, without allowance for an atheist view on what was just declared. The book had so much promise, but I felt it didn't deliver.

This small hardcover is published by Christianity Today, so if you buy this book, they will receive proceeds. As an atheist, I decided to buy this book used from a mom-n-pop dealer.

[Jerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a rare phenomenon much like the related documentary Collision. In the foreword, Jonah Goldberg points out, as a secular Jew, that rarely do two opponents discuss religious views with joy and gratitude. This presence doesn't take away from the heat of the debate--not a punch was pulled--but it does appear to shed more light. Surely angry or overly serious people have their scopes so narrow that they miss nearly everything else besides what they fret. Wilson and Hitchens can change topic without leaving the subject because they are listening to one another, making connections and therefore having a laugh. I can't pretend to be sympathetic to Hitchen's arguments but, perhaps alone, among the new atheists he deserves the non-sniveling award.

[Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and entertaining, a very quick read, and possibly better for laying out the differing concerns and presuppositions of the two positions than for providing definitive defenses of those positions which undoubtedly would require much more than these six short "rounds" of debate. At times it seems there was some misunderstanding of the other side and thus some "talking past each other" in this debate. There are a few statements from each contender that are quite powerful, and several witty if not almost hilarious "comebacks" but all in all this seems like a warm up for the more substantial debate that Hitchens and wilson did not seem to have.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN EXCELLENT DEBATE BETWEEN A PROMINENT ATHEST AND A PROMINENT CHRISTIAN

Jonah Goldberg’s foreword to this 2008 book explains, “Douglas Wilson, a devout Christian, believes that Christianity is true and good. Christopher Hitchens, a no less devout atheist, believes Christianity is entirely untrue and ultimately not good… This is a joyful book. Both men clearly love the subject, love wrestling with it and each other, and do so with an evident---and expressed---sense of gratitude.”

Hitchens states in his opening chapter, “It is to me an appalling thought that anyone would wish for a supreme and absolute and unalterable ruler, whose reign was eternal and unchallengeable, who required incessant propitiation, and who kept us all under continual surveillance… which did not even cease (and which indeed even intensified) after our deaths… This celestial Big Brother states would be the last refinement of the totalitarian…” (Pg. 12)

Wilson responds, “Christopher Hitchens argues carefully, but given atheism, I want him to justify his use of reason. If there is no God, what is truth? Christopher Hitchens displays great moral indignation, but, given atheism, I want him to justify that indignation. If there is no God, then who cares? And Christopher Hitchens writes as a very capable wordsmith, but given atheism, I want him to justify his vibrant and engaging prose.” (Pg. 19)

Hitchens argues, “If Christianity is to claim credit for the work of outstanding Christians or for the labors of famous charities, then it must in all honesty accept responsibility for the opposite… If hymns and psalms were sung to sanctify slavery… and then sung by abolitionists, then surely the non-fanatical explanation is that morality requires no supernatural sanction? Every Christian church had had to make some apology for its role in the Crusades, slavery, anti-Semitism, and much else.” (Pg. 23-24)

Wilson counters, “Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual? How does this individualism of yours flow from the premises of atheism? Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than then respect the internal churnings or any other given chemical reaction? That’s all our thoughts are, isn’t that right?” (Pg. 29)

Wilson adds, “I am NOT saying that you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. I AM saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of my you believe yourself obligated to live this way… Given atheism, objective morality follows… how?” (Pg. 34)

Hitchens points out, “On the matter of Stalin… Until 1917, Russia had been ruled for centuries by an absolute monarch who was also the head of a corrupt and bigoted Orthodox Church … With millions of hungry and anxious people so long stultified and so credulous, Stalin the ex-seminarian would have been a fool is he did not call upon such a reservoir of ignorance and servility, and seek to emulate his predecessor. If Mr. Wilson would prefer to … point to a society that lapsed into misery and despotism by following the precepts of Epicurus and Spinoza or Jefferson or Einstein, I will gladly meet him on that ground.” (Pg. 37)

Wilson replies, “Take the vilest atheist you ever heard of. Imagine yourself sitting at his bedside before he passes away… you must say something to him, and… it must flow directly from your shared atheism---and it must challenge the morality of this choices. What can you possibly say? He did get away with it. There is a great deal of injustice behind him, which he perpetrated, and no justice in front of him. You have no basis for saying anything to him other than to point to your own set of personal prejudices and preferences.” (Pg. 40)

Hitchens states, “I say that our ‘innate’ redisposition to the both good and wicked behavior is precisely what one would expect to find of a recently-evolved species that is (as we now know from the study of DNA) half a chromosome away from chimpanzees. By the way, do not take that as a denigration of humankind. Primate and elephant and even pig societies show considerable evidence of care for others, parent-child bonding, solidarity in the face of danger, and so on.” (Pg. 52-53)

Wilson replies, “You praise reason to the heights, yet you will not give REASONS for your strident and inflexible moral judgments… So for you to refuse to accept Christ because it is absurd is like a man at one end of the pool refusing to move to the other end because he might get wet. Given your premises, you will have to come up with a different reason for rejecting Christ as you do. But for you to make this move would reveal the fundamental tenets of TRUE atheism. One: There is no God. Two: I hate Him.” (Pg. 58)

Hitchens points out, “It is … religion that mad made many morally normal people assent to appalling cruelties, including the mutilation of children’s genitalia, the institution of slavery… and many other crimes from which an average infidel would, without any heavenly prompting, turn away. Ask yourself this question: Can you name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been spoken by an atheist? My email is available to any reader who is willing to accept this challenge.” (Pg. 61-62)

This is an excellent debate/discussion, that will be “must reading” for anyone interested in such religious
 

[Mark · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wouldn't recommend this book, whether you are a fan of Hitchens or Wilson. This book is like reading a vocal debate... yet apparently the authors wrote to each other. I might even guess that this was an exchange of emails between the two. The content just isn't that good, the authors talk past each other, both make a couple good points but I would much rather have a well formulated argument from each side for their views instead of this format.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really great, punchy little debate. Both men are good apologists for their positions, but that made something else come into focus. The debate really isn't about intellectual rpm, it's about being given eyes to see, or not. These men are two trains passing in the night, and they will not be able to connect until they get on the same track.

Also read in Spring of 2010.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps the most productive debate out there.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent!

[Vince Lanier]

I stick with my stance that I don't beleive in atheist.