One fair assessment of Christopher Hitchens' atheism: It hasn't brought him happiness. Hitchens might deny that, but the man debating Alister McGrath last night at Georgetown did not seem a happy one. Instead, he directed a plethora of tirades toward primarily the Christian faith, barely pausing to catch his breath.

McGrath summarizes the debate about right in his book about another angry British atheist: "Whereas [Stephen J.] Gould at least tries to weigh the evidence, Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking." Hitchens takes just the same approach, though McGrath wasn't nearly as direct in their confrontation yesterday. He presented himself, in fact, as a near-perfect anti-Hitchens, providing a calm, patient, and civil contrast to Hitchens' sharp and bitter rants.

Where McGrath didn't succeed, unfortunately, was in pinning Hitchens down on any of the gaping holes of his argument. Hitchens was on the offensive for most of the debate, with a shock-and-awe delivery of unsubstantiated accusations and twisted theology. Persistent in his "good cop" role, McGrath's approach seemed to be to concede points wherever he could, keep the debate positive, and turn around Hitchens' distorted view of Christ. In the latter he was probably most effective, countering Hitchens' perspective of God as a "celestial dictator" with a view of a "celestial liberator," and dismissing an interpretation of Revelation that sees "gleeful" destruction with one that finds redemption and healing.

Still, I thought McGrath was ultimately too soft on the hopeless logical conclusions of atheism and the firm truth claims of the Christian faith. And he chose not to fully address Hitchens' repeated attacks on the integrity of God as displayed in the Old Testament (or the New, for that matter). Perhaps this was a wise move, yet simply pointing to the non-violent teachings of Christ didn't satisfactorily address the issue.

But the bigger question left on the table: On what basis can man determine what is good without divine assistance? Or as McGrath put it, "Can one have a viable moral system without some transcendent basis of morality?" Hitchens was asked these questions directly, and -- as in every debate I've read or seen of his -- he evades the problem by instead attacking the perceived evils allowed by or ordained by God. This may not be the only meaningful point of dissension in this debate, but it's close.

In a somewhat surprising admission, Hitchens did acknowledge that his obligations to fellow man are based in a hope that goodness will be returned to him. Yet such a pragmatic morality is only as binding as a few selfish humans decide it is. No wonder he's bitter.

(More comments and discussion at The Point.)