Books & Bibles
Entertainment
Fashion & Jewelry
Gifts & Giving
Home Decor & Accents
Kitchen & Gourmet
Beauty & Health
Specialty Stores
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is Christianity Good For The World?
| Our Price |
$ 6.16
|
|
| Retail Value |
$ 7.00 |
|
| You Save |
$ 0.84 (12%) |
|
| Item Number |
1057918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item Description...
Put two contrarians together and shake well. -Christianity Today 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. |
Item Specifications...
Pages 72
Dimensions: Length: 4.99" Width: 7.99" Height: 0.14"
Weight: 0.18 lbs.
Binding Softcover
Release Date Oct 1, 2009
Publisher Canon Press
ISBN 1591280699
EAN 9781591280699
|
Availability 100 units.
Availability accurate as of May 26, 2012 06:40.
Usually ships within one to two business days from Johnson City, TN.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
|
Product Categories
Similar Products
Reviews - What do our customers think?
 | A "Debate" Not Worthy of the Name (or Its Authors) Dec 12, 2009 |
I was excited first coming across this work, given its main protagonists being one of the most public critics of religion and one of Christianity's more prolific apologists. In many ways, the work promises in its title to be a continuation of the dispute surrounding the issue of whether religious belief generally, and Christianity specifically, is of benefit or harm to society on the whole. Both Hitchens (in his own work) and Wilson (in his responses to Dawkins and Harris) have addressed this at length; and thus this is a work with great promise.
It ends up, however, being a promise that is not kept. To call this work a "debate" is to stretch language beyond its limits. Even "exchange" would be somewhat generous. Throught almost the entire work, Hitchens and Wilson address different subjects altogether. Hitchens, following the lead of the title, is attempting to keep focused on the question of Christianity's impact on the world. Wilson, however, is focused on the question of whether one can have a rational grounding for ethics without God. The result is that most of the work is the record of two intellectuals talking past each other. Half of Wilson's time is spent chiding Hitchens for not answering the questions Wilson asks; Hitchens largely keeps repeating himself; and both spend WAY too much time wringing their hands over the ethnicity of the Good Samaritan. Neither one truly responds to the challenges laid down by the other, nor offers anything remotely original. Plus, Wilson ends up eventually engaging in a blatant ad hominem attack by asserting that one of the tenets of something he calls "true atheism" is: "I hate Him [God]", thereby overturning his early admission that atheists can act rightly (he questions whether they can intellectually JUSTIFY acting rightly, which is kind of strange if you think of it--I wasn't aware that acting rightly NEEDED to be intellectually justified.) by making an appeal that would necessarily make atheists bad people--they HATE GOD, after all. Sigh. Overall, I don't feel this work adds anything over what each has already published; and probably constitutes a major step BACKWARD in any serious consideration of the issues raised.
In the end, there's bad news and good news. The bad news is: I wasted my time reading this and my money buying it. The good news is: this work is short and cheap, so I didn't waste much of either. | | |  | How Evolution Poisons Everything Dec 3, 2009 |
My preceding heading may be noticed as a takeoff on the subtitle, How Religion Poisons Everything, of the well-known Hitchens book that thrashes God. My reason for the heading is the unbounded influence Darwinism has on Hitchens - one of the authors of the book reviewed - in step with the virtual mania of celebrating the theory.
That unrestrained influence is glaring in Hitchens's unbelievable reference (p.60), "the great Isaac Newton and the even greater Alfred Russell Wallace"! The latter is known as cofounder of the theory of evolution by natural selection, and Newton, of course, is often considered the greatest scientist in history, with immeasurable contributions. How can he be relegated to a lesser place than mentioned Wallace? Obviously by blind obeisance to current "Science", of which the discussed author is not a practitioner.
This should indicate his measure of competence in that debate. He also is not otherwise a thinker, in philosophy or logic, although considerable intelligence is attributed to him. (With loud adulation - beware!)
The other author, Douglas Wilson, does not enjoy the same fame but appears quite a qualified match. As other reviewers noted, the arguments are chiefly about morality, more particularly about whether moral standards require God (in this case a Christian God) as their origin, or whether they can be drawn from secular (here atheist or at least evolutionary) sources. Wilson argues ably in answer to his opponent's persistent "Our morality evolved": "If our morality evolved, then that means our morality changes. If evolution isn't done yet (and why should it be?), then that means our morality is involved in this on-going flux as well. And that means that everything we consider to be 'moral' is really up for grabs..." (pp.63-4).
Hitchens has the argument (p.62): "Ask yourself this question. Can you name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or spoken by an atheist?" Suppose you can't do that. What is the implication? If an atheist can do the same, does that mean he or she, or atheists in general, will do it? Atheists may not be compelled like believers to be "moral" (should the word be understood, in view of the preceding paragraph), unless similarly compelled by man-made laws, as in fact happens in organized societies.
There is this little question though: What if atheists can get away with something, like a selfish act? In principle, non-believers can get away with multitudes of wrongs believers can be assumed not to. To be sure, as both authors of the book recognize, presumed believers are not necessarily so saintly either. This reviewer would therefore inject some additional thought.
Some may question whether biblical precepts do originate with God, suggesting whether all moral precepts do not somehow arise from the way life is constituted. But then one can ask whether life and the world are not constituted by a higher power we may name God. The point is we may get away from the dichotomy of either the Bible, specifically the Christian one, or atheism. The book's title asks, "Is Christianity Good for the World?", and we might rephrase it, "Is God Good for the World?"
| | |  | Intellectually Great, Missed the Gospel Nov 23, 2009 |
This is a debate between Christian apologist Douglas Wilson and New Atheist Christopher Hitchens. It is a very intellectually and stimulating piece of work, but if you are looking for answers to the actual title of the book this is not where you will find it. This specific debate does cover the topic but not in the manner that most would think. Hitchens argument is that Christianity believe in a God that is evil and therefore it is not good for the world and is evil. He doesn't believe that any faith is necessary within our evolutionary scope on the timeline and that it is outdated. Wilson, does a great job of trying to point his questions to aim at who is the authority and what would be the end goal with that authority for all of Hitchens arguments. Many of Wilson's question do not actually get answered. Regardless, this is an interesting read to pick up if you are not familiar with New Atheist or in apologetics. If there is one reason to read this book, it is because of a line that Wilson says to Hitchens, "Two fundamental principle are always adherent in all Atheist, One: There is No God and Two: I hate Him." For all Christians that may read this, Romans 1 speaks to atheism and in fact tell us that there is no such thing, which is what Wilson's point was with this comment.
My only trouble with this is that it didn't bring enough of the gospel into it, and Wilson seemed to try to explain away Hitchens reasonings for not believing in God rather than explain it in the way Scripture does, which is that he is spiritually dead and can not understand anything spiritual or of God. It is still a great read and you can't expect everything to be in all books and debates, but I would of liked to see more of the gospel incorporated. | | | | Not Bad Sep 17, 2009 |
Not bad for the little 72 page signed copy that I picked up for a mere $4.50 after the screening of "Collision" (the film that captured the clash of worldviews for these two men during their debating tour last year) at the Christian Book Expo in Dallas.
The book is basically a debate between the popular intellectual atheist (or anti-theist, as he likes to be called) Christopher Hitchens and the pastor/apologist Doug Wilson. Knowing the personality and wit of these two men assured me that it would be entertaining ride, which it was. So for that I was well pleased.
But from a more sober perspective, the debate didn't make it too far off the ground and quickly turned into a sort of moral circus. There was an obvious repetitiveness throughout the debate of Hitchens labeling Christianity as immoral and Wilson responding by demanding a basis for the moral standard which Hitchens was appealing to. Unfortunately, Hitchens never really faced this challenge head on, opting instead to side step the issue with "rhetorical embellishment and empurpled prose," as Wilson so eloquently put it.
In the end, although entertaining, Hitchens failed to even get a foot off the ground, namely because there was no such ground. One could say that he was, essentially, trying to jump out of a bottomless pit the entire debate - quite a circus trick indeed! Although I admire him for his attempt and enjoyed his witty remarks, it is obvious that he undoubtedly lost this debate. | | | | Okay, Let's Not Pretend... Jul 24, 2009 |
That this (or any other book debating religion, for that matter) is going to change people's minds. The audience for this book will be one of two groups: the Hitchophiles (which includes myself) who will read a toothpaste ad if Hitchens wrote it, and the Christians who want to see the "First Cause" and "Watchmaker" arguments in print yet again. As a devoted fan of Hitch I have to say that I was underwhelmed by this debate. As others have mentioned, Hitch was not his usual cutting edge eviscerating self and the question in the title of the book ("Is Christianity Good For the World") is never properly answered by either party. Instead, the debate came down to a discussion on where do morals come from and whether anything can be considered good or evil by secular standards.
To save you some time (and perhaps money), here's how it went: Hitchens argued that our sense of right and wrong is innate and is evolving as our species and societies have evolved. To which Wilson presents his (inane) philosophy which goes far beyond Dostoevsky's "Without God, all things are permissible" to his own childish "Without God, all things are equal". In other words, if you don't buy the tale that a son of a Jewish virgin and the Creator of the Universe died for your sins and all those who do not accept him will be tortured for eternity, then feeding a hungry child and beating that same child to death should be morally the same to you. Disgusting, feeble, and stupid argument, if I may say so. I wish Hitch would had called him out on this and several other points. He should had said "Of course morality has evolved! Just a century ago, child labour was a part of the lives of all but the elite. Now, thankfully, in the Western world our children are not seen as slave labour. But why is this so? Where in the Bible does it condemn forcing your child into work or physically abusing him if he refuses? Indeed, the Bible defends the right of the parent to beat his children, sell them into slavery (including prostitution),and to even kill them for disobedience. Ask the opinion of any CYS official if this is good parenting and see if our sense of morality has evolved".
Also, we come to the "meaning of life". In Wilson's view, anyone not trying to grovel his way out of hell might as well just stay in bed or end it now, his life has no meaning. How dare he! It is up to every person, religious and secular alike, to devise his own raison d'etre. For those of us who are parents that meaning is often our children; for others it might be their jobs, music, or travels, but that meaning is important to the individual and not for others to condemn. No one meaning is for everyone. Even something as important as Doctors Without Borders cannot be the life's goal of every individual, so why should religion (and specifically Christianity) be offered as the only thing which can give life any meaning or depth?
The fact is, and Wilson continued to evade, the Bible is full of outright abuses against humanity which demand us to push aside our innate sense of morality and embrace a totalitarian system of rewards and punishments based on a myth which has as much evidence to support it as the deities of the Norsemen or the Greeks. Hitchens was far too civil with this gent who was not fit to polish his shoes and for those of us who salivate over every word from Hitch this debate will come as a disappointment. For a true, full bodied taste of Hitch, check out "god is not Great" for the argument which he should had presented. For an even deeper rational for atheism, read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian". Skip this unless (like me) you need to read everything Hitchens. | | | Write your own review about Is Christianity Good For The World?
|
|
(0 Items)
