{"id":693,"date":"2009-11-10T11:49:14","date_gmt":"2009-11-10T16:49:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dangeroustalk.net\/?p=693"},"modified":"2009-11-10T11:49:14","modified_gmt":"2009-11-10T16:49:14","slug":"dvd-review-collision-hitchens-vs-wilson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.dangeroustalk.net\/?p=693","title":{"rendered":"DVD Review – Collision: Hitchens vs. Wilson"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recently, I watched the new DVD film, \u201cCollision: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson.\u201d The film follows the book tour of atheist Hitchens and fundamentalist Christian Wilson as they debate each other on the question, \u201cis Christianity good for the world?\u201d<\/p>\n

Hitchens describes himself as an anti-theist in the film and makes the argument that morality came before Christianity and that morality is innate in human beings through the evolutionary process. Most of the time however, Hitchens talks about how great he thinks Wilson is for being such an unapologetic fundamentalist.<\/p>\n

On the other side, Wilson spends much of the screen time talking about how atheists use Christian morality to criticize Christianity and how atheists have no moral grounding. He uses John Lennon\u2019s famous song Imagine<\/em> to argue that without belief in the Christian God, atheists should just do whatever they like. In fact, Wilson sets up the strawman that all atheists ought to be Stalin.<\/p>\n

I found this film to be pretty one-sided and that Hitchens never really addresses any of Wilson\u2019s attacks. I think that it is important to address those attacks and to criticize the Christian world view as immoral. Hitchens does spend a little bit of time on the later by criticizing the central Christian concept of vicarious redemption of sin, but he doesn\u2019t really drive the point home nor does it stand out as the harsh criticism that it actually is. It seems a bit underplayed.<\/p>\n

Wilson repeatedly attacks Hitchens for not having any moral grounding and then talks about how God is his moral grounding. Hitchens just sort of smirks, but doesn\u2019t really discuss this in any detail. The fact of the matter is that Christians have no moral grounding either.<\/p>\n

The fact is that God doesn\u2019t ground morality at all and that all of us human beings have to continue in a long and hard intellectual struggle to understand how right and wrong relate to other human beings. Hitchens never states that there is no morality in a vacuum and that morality only exists because human beings have to interact with other human beings and the world around us. The fact that we as a species can think and reason is the very reason why we developed a moral sense.<\/p>\n

Wilson does have a brilliant line of attack at one point in which he defends (against no one in particular) against the charge of circular reasoning. He states that his authority is the Bible and when asked why, he quotes a Biblical passage. Then he says that if we were to ask an atheist what his (or her) authority is, the atheist would say reason. Wilson then counters (to no one in particular) that he would ask why and the atheist would give his reasons which would amount to him quoting his Bible.<\/p>\n

In other words, Wilson defends against the charge of circular reasoning by accusing atheists of using circular reasoning too. There are a few problems with this. The first is claiming that atheist use circular reasoning doesn\u2019t make it logically valid for Christians to use circular reasoning. The second problem is that it sets up a false premise. The idea that everyone must have a singular authority or foundation for their world view is just a false assumption that limits our options. Third, reason isn\u2019t an authority, it is a process. Wilson confuses the two when in fact it is apples and oranges.<\/p>\n

In any case, I can see young fundamentalist Christians on college campuses using this argument and Hitchens never even addresses it in the film. I love Hitchens in debates and on Christian talk shows because he isn\u2019t afraid to interrupt or cut off his opponent when they are trying to railroad him, but in this film, he didn\u2019t do that at all. In fact, he was railroaded. I am shocked that he would continue to support this film in light of the editing.
\n
\n\"Bookmark<\/a>