COLLISION - Doug Wilson/Christopher Hitchens

Hello Alex,
I don't know Douglas Wilson, but I've heard Christopher Hitchens debate Dinesh D'Souza and Jay Richards. Both times I wouldn't call him an "intellectual heavyweight." He avoided the question, resorted to ad hominems, and sank to profanity. He has a British accent, which seems to impress most Americans, but his arguments were pitiful. I can't believe this video would be worth #13.99.

Chris,

Thanks for the comment. A blogging friend of mine has already seen it and said it was quite good. So I'm intrigued. Their on-line debate (featured on Christianity Today) was quite lively.

I wouldn't call Christopher Hitchens an "intellectual heavyweight". I read his column in Slate every Monday, because for the most part his writing has the appearance of being very clear, and he sometimes brings up things that the American mainstream media (both liberal and conservative) somehow avoid mentioning, but in most of his columns there's also some relevant fact he omits that would seriously undermine whatever argument he's making, and it's fun to try to see if I can find it. It's usually something subtle, not something glaringly obvious as in a Krauthammer column. However, I've also seen Hitchens in live debates, and he's certainly impressive in that setting -- a heavyweight, you could say -- and sometimes I've felt sorry for his opponents who aren't as articulate as he is or as good at thinking on their feet.

As for Doug Wilson, I am distinctly unimpressed with his intellectual weight. He makes the same kinds of arguments as Tim Keller, although I think he's better than Keller at appearing to be someone who has thought through his arguments and finds them convincing. But still: "Every position is a faith position" and "I want to base everything on the Bible" -- as if the Bible is as reliable a base as "reason", which he suggests is a competing base. I wish that people like him who talk about the distinction between basing everything on the Bible vs. basing everything on reason would actually point out some examples where those two starting points lead to different conclusions. As an example, they might say something like this: "I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because that's what I conclude from the Bible as my base of beliefs. If I were using reason alone as my base, I would conclude that either Jesus didn't exist or, if he did, he did not rise from the dead."