First of all, I must state that is is a very short book. It is not much longer than a feature article one might find in a magazine.
Secondly, the format is a back and forth response style. What would have long ago been letters written between the debaters, is now an accumulation of to-and-fro newspaper articles. Even now this style seems dated, making the book read more like an archive of blog posts from two different websites, minus the hyperlinks and comments from visitors.
As for the actual content, Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson are both steadfast in their resolve so it does not take long until personal attacks, as polite and they may seem, work their way into the argument.
Hitchens just seems to want to be let alone by religionists. He is perfectly happy in admitting that he cannot disprove any god's existence and even more happy that proof of this existence has never been given.
On the other hand, the basis of WIlson's argument seems to be that because his bible says something, it is true. He cannot see how any atheist can be moral without supernatural guidance. He comes across as having an extremely narrow definition of what atheism can mean to different people.
Secondly, the format is a back and forth response style. What would have long ago been letters written between the debaters, is now an accumulation of to-and-fro newspaper articles. Even now this style seems dated, making the book read more like an archive of blog posts from two different websites, minus the hyperlinks and comments from visitors.
As for the actual content, Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson are both steadfast in their resolve so it does not take long until personal attacks, as polite and they may seem, work their way into the argument.
Hitchens just seems to want to be let alone by religionists. He is perfectly happy in admitting that he cannot disprove any god's existence and even more happy that proof of this existence has never been given.
On the other hand, the basis of WIlson's argument seems to be that because his bible says something, it is true. He cannot see how any atheist can be moral without supernatural guidance. He comes across as having an extremely narrow definition of what atheism can mean to different people.
