I’ve read many essays by Christopher Hitchens over the years, usually being impressed with his intellect if not agreeing with his conclusions. Slate introduced me to his new book, “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” when they ran a series of excerpts from it, and though I’m not in the habit of reading books arguing for atheism, I put it on my “to get” list. 
I wasn’t the only one impressed with his work, as his book shot up near the top of the bestseller list. Somewhere I saw a short TV interview with him, his brother wrote an article against his views, and there are various other debates and articles out there.
Christianity Today sponsored an online debate between Hitchens and Douglas Wilson and the point of this post is to recommend that you read it. There are six posts in which Hitchens and Wilson each speak, but they are interesting, intelligent, and often humorous. If you live in the world of apologetics and philosophy, you may be less impressed, but I recommend them for all others. It is good to read what the other side is saying, and it is especially good to read it when they have someone equally intelligent asking probing questions. It is quite possible that a believer with a solid Christian college education could be fooled by Hitchens’ arguments as presented in his book. But that is the advantage of a forum, where the ideas of both can be equally expressed and weighed. Both of these debaters are brilliant, but they know how to put the cookies on a shelf that I can reach.
You can read each piece individually online (Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6), but I found it easier to read them all in a single Word document.
I enjoyed reading this dialogue as much as you did, and Wilson held his own. There’s certainly an atheist underbelly in America that’s showing itself, and we need to be prepared to challenge it. Thanks, Todd.
Yeah, Hitchens was on TV when Falwell died. He is an effective communicator and obviously a man of great intellect. I don’t agree with his positions. My mom went to the point of saying “that man is dangerous” and in many ways I agree. He takes the ideas of Michael Newdow and actually manages to put an intellectual spin on them. Unlike Newdow, this guy knows how to present a message. This book sounds like it is worthy of a read.
I wonder if it’s dangerous to hang our faith on notions of objective morality and truth. It seems like Hitchens is forwarding an evolutionary pragmatism. That is, he’s not concerned (like Rorty) with metaphysics, only political pragmatics, and hence subjectivism/relativism, within the confines of whatever a society happens to find normative (for whatever reason). The real question that seems as yet unanswered is; does a lack of an objective moral foundation lead to more or less “good?” Hitchens clearly argues that it leads to more good. Wilson argues, somewhat differently, that we no longer have a basis for determining what “IS” good. But this seems to be begging the question. That is, I don’t think that argument will bother someone like Hitchens. . ..at least not someone living in America under a rule of law. So the real debate is, “will this lack of moral foundation lead to a political existence that is untenable.” If it does, then Hitchens has lost the debate. If it doesn’t, then Wilson has just hung Christianity on something that doesn’t matter.
I’m still wrestling with whether or not this is the correct approach.