COLLISION: Hitchens vs. Wilson

[Ryft]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtFENgBUllA

www.collisionmovie.com

[Tiberius]

So who do you think came out better? I haven't seen the movie, but in some interviews with both participants, Douglas Wilson comes across as the science denying, evangelical fundamentalist that tend to be more of an embarrassment than anything.

[Ryft]

I haven't seen it yet so I cannot really comment. But from the snippets that I've seen on the Collision web site, it's evident that Wilson is a far better writer than he is a speaker. When it comes to live debate, he is clearly outmatched by Hitchens' rhetorical eloquence. Wilson's thinking is incisive and cuts straight at the heart of the issues, but unfortunately it comes out only in his writing. I purchased the book Is Christianity Good for the World?, [1] a publication of their written exchange in 2007, [2] and I visit Wilson's web site irregularly [3] so I have observed his sharp mind and clever wit expressed in its best form. And at least in that book Wilson punched some powerful holes in Hitchens' position. I only wish he could speak publicly with the same articulate force that his writing conveys.

Wilson is definitely an evangelical fundamentalist—in the scholarly and authentic meaning of the terms—but he is not "science-denying" by any means. To infer such a thing demonstrates a prejudice that probably results from a lack of familiarity with Wilson's position—which, when speaking publicly, he doesn't articulate clearly enough. I must grant that. Hitchens knows what Wilson's real position is because he has interacted with him at length, and I know because I've been following his work for a few years. It is true that he rejects metaphysical naturalism, but no self-respecting intellectual confuses that with science. Wilson has an appreciation for scientific enterprise; however, he places it on a foundation that is capable of being rationally justified. As Wikipedia indicates, [4] he is Reformed with respect to theology and presuppositionalist with respect to apologetics, so it might help to think of my position when trying to understand his.

Douglas Wilson is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an embarrassment—at least not outside the ad hominem mistake of confusing style, how he speaks publicly, with substance, what his arguments are. As a philosopher and theologian, he is highly regarded and well respected. As even Hitchens said of him, "Wilson isn't one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just 'metaphors'. He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn't waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course [God] 'allows' it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing." [5]

Without having yet seen the film, perhaps I can best answer your question this way: in writing, Wilson comes out on top; in speaking, Hitchens does (from what little I've seen). This is not because Hitchens has better arguments when debating live, for his arguments are the same in either format, but rather because Wilson is not as articulate when speaking as he is when writing. And, with all due respect to Wilson, one gets the sense that he is less focused in live debate, too, because he lets Hitchens get away with things that I've seen him challenge in writing. Some people struggle with thinking on their feet, as it were, which writing does not expose but live debate does. Maybe Wilson has this struggle.

---

EDIT: Sorry, just wanted to include a couple of examples of his "sharp mind and clever wit" that is bold and clear in his writing, mostly because I really appreciate it and I like to share things I happen to appreciate. In his book Letter From a Christian Citizen, Wilson here is responding to Sam Harris' righteous indignation at the so-called problem of natural evil, such as the Asian tsunami and the devestation in New Orleans:

"[The Asian tsunami] had no more ultimate significance than a solar flare, or a virus going extinct, or a desolate asteroid colliding with another asteroid, or the gradual loss of Alabama to kudzu, or me scratching my head just now. These are just atoms, banging around. This is what they do” (p. 51-52). “What He did to New Orleans was holy, righteous, just and good. Some of it may have been an obvious chastisement for those who would build a major city below sea level in hurricane country and then attempt to govern it through corruption and vice” (p. 62).

[Dotard]

???

Making the claim the asian tsunami was as insignificant as two distant astroids bumping into each other and yet the destruction New Orleans was holy and good is an example of a sharp mind and clever wit?!

God came along and caused all that death and destruction in asian for no reason really, just for fun I suppose. Yet he caused all the death and destruction in New Orleans because those people governed by corruption and vice, they were 'bad' people.

Yeah...... very nice example of a sharp mind and clever wit. (insert eyeroll emoticon here)

[Ryft]

Right, because that's what Wilson meant... <rolls eyes>

[Dotard]

Wilson says "God came along and caused all that death and destruction in asian for no reason really, just for fun I suppose. Yet he caused all the death and destruction in New Orleans because those people governed by corruption and vice, they were 'bad' people." (paraphrased)

And because he meant it, that is an example of a sharp mind and clever wit?

What am I missing here? I'd call that an example of a dull-as-a-spoon mind and witless.

Am I misreading something?

[Ryft]

Clearly.

[Dotard]

May I have further explanation please?

[amw79]

I'd like further explanation re Wilsons statement as well please Arcanus, as I've clearly missed something.

I've just watched Collision, and it's really good viewing - highly recommended, (many thanks for the reference Arcanus).

I thought the last 10 - 15 minutes were edited in favour of Wilson slightly, leaving you with the impression that he may have got the upper hand, which was not the case over the full film; but Wilson came across very well all the same.

I'll be looking into reading some Wilson off the back of this film to better understand his viewpoint, although I have a suspicion that there may be a few too many biblical references for my taste.

[Darwinian]

Me too..

I think an explanation of the context in which this statement was made and perhaps a summary of the mans personality would be useful. Otherwise we're simply going to take the text at face value and come to the conclusion that he is a nutjob.