Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[jwhitlock]

...Hitchens's unparalelled demonstration.

The real parallel on this thread is between Hitchens and anti-Mormon writers. It is interesting indeed to compare the two; is Hitchens on the same level as, say, Decker or Keller, or is his rant more comparable to the ravings of your average street screecher? Or, as Monte would claim, is Hitchens in a class all by himself, someone who anti-Mormons should reverently study for technique and skill in their own trade?

One can dismiss the conclusions of both Hitchens and fringe anti-Mormons because their sloppy research and inaccuracy is so pervasive in their writings. What we are left with is a heated debate as to who exhibits the best showmanship in swaying the unthinking masses.

And can my flowery prose hold a candle to Monte's?

[Strindberg]

Those who find some merit in Hitchens's new book might be interested in reading the latest section of the (hopefully) forthcoming book by DCP and myself. It comes from the chapter entitled "A World without Religion," detailing the importance of religion in world history. (I can't get footnotes to appear in the text; I'm appending them at the end, but the numbered references were dropped from the text itself when I cut and pasted.)

===

A Test Case of Preservation: Aristotle and Plato

Hitchens bemoans the loss of so much ancient culture to alleged book burning by ignorant and tyrannical Christians. â??The lost works of Aristotle and other Greeks,â? Hitchens claims, were â??â??lostâ?? because the Christian authorities had burned some, suppressed others, and closed the schools of philosophyâ? (25), alluding to Justinian closing the Academy of Athens in 529. Why did they commit such a crime against culture? â??On the grounds that there could have been no useful reflections on morality before the teachings of Jesusâ? (25). Later, he continues in the same vein. â??Many of [Aristotleâ??s] writings were lost,â? he informs us, â??when the Christian emperor Justinian closed the schools of philosophy, but were preserved in Arabic translation in Baghdad and then retransmitted to a benighted Christian Europe by way of Jewish and Muslim Andalusiaâ? (68).

Needless to say, there is not the hint of a footnote to these claims. (Where does he come up with these ideas?) It is tiresome to repeatedly be forced to unpack Hitchensâ??s consistently warped presentation of intellectual history; tiresome, but very necessary. First, letâ??s take a look at the chronological impossibility of what Hitchens claims. Justinian rather ineffectively closed the pagan Academy of Athens in 529â??ineffectively, because teaching there in fact continued for decades. Note, first, that by this time the academy had obviously somehow survived two centuries of Christian rule. Furthermore, it was largely moribund, since there were so few pagans left in Byzantium. The Academy was also largely Platonic in emphasis, not Aristotelian. Most importantly, the closing of the Academy did not entail a ban on the study of Plato or Aristotle; as we shall soon note, the study of Plato and Aristotle continued unabated.

The Abbasid institute to which Hitchens refers, that was central to the translation of Greek scientific and philosophical texts into Arabic, was the Dar al-Hikma (â??House of Wisdomâ?) at Baghdad. It did not begin operations until the late eighth century, after the founding of Baghdad in 762. Thus, there is nearly a quarter of a millennium between when Justinian closed the Academy in 529 and when the Baghdad translation schools began after 762. If Justinian had been successful in stifling the study of Aristotle so that many of his works were lost, as Hitchens claims, how did these suppressed and lost manuscripts of Aristotle survive for the next 250 years to be translated by the Arabs and then later transmitted to the West? All of this further ignores the issue that medieval Islamic society was just as religious as the West. If religions universally scorn and repress learning, as Hitchens claims, why in the world did the Muslims bother to translate Aristotle at all?

What about the supposed Christian motivation for this non-event? Here Hitchens is quite blunt. Christians destroyed Aristotle and other Greek manuscripts because they wanted people to believe that â??there could have been no useful [pagan] reflections on morality before the teachings of Jesusâ? (25). Actual medieval Christians, as opposed to Hitchensâ??s caricatures, did not share this view. For example the early eleventh century Byzantine monk Mauropous â??the teacher of the polymathic scholar Michael Psellus (1018-1081), one of the founders of the Byzantine Platonic revival of the eleventh century â??â??was so impressed by the similarity of Plato and Plutarchâ??s lofty moral sentiments to the teachings of the gospelâ? that he wrote the following prayer in the form of a poem to God:

If perchance you wish to exempt certain pagans from punishment, my Christ,

May you spare for my sake Plato and Plutarch,

For both were very close to your laws in both teaching and way of life.

Does Hitchens really want to argue that these are the sentiments of a man who believed â??there could have been no useful reflections on morality before the teachings of Jesusâ? (25)?

Furthermore, Hitchensâ??s assertion that it was â??Jewish and Muslimâ? scholars of Andalusia who reintroduced Aristotle to the West is only partly true. The scholars of Andalusia involved in the cultural exchange included Jews, Muslims, andâ??though conspicuously absent from Hitchensâ??s accountâ??Christians. (They were apparently somehow able to accomplish all this without the help of atheists, by the way.) However, at roughly the same time translations of parts of Aristotle directly from the Greek were being made by James of Venice (died c. 1142) at Constantinople. Additional books were later translated by Robert Grosseteste (d. 1253) and William of Moerbeke (d. 1286). Why does Hitchens ignore the notable role of these Christian scholars in both Andalusia and elsewhere in the reintroduction of Aristotle to the West? The work of these Christian scholars again directly conflicts with his claims that it was the Christians who suppressed Aristotle in the first place. His overall position seems strange given the strongly Aristotelian nature of Scholasticism in the later Middle Ages, as even a preemptory glance at Aquinas can demonstrate.

In fact, the writings of Plato and Aristotle were largely lost in the West because Greek ceased to be studied after the fall of Rome. They, however, continued to be widely studied in the Byzantine East. How else would it have been possible for us to now have their books in the original Greek? To show just how wrong Hitchens is in his claim we need only note that, far from being suppressed by Justinian, the study of Aristotle flourished in Byzantium. â??Byzantine higher education always centered on the study of Aristotle. His works have been transmitted in over 1,000 manuscripts dated between the 9th and 16th centuries, making him by far the most widely copied ancient Greek author; he is also the most commented on.â? When we remember that the Greek New Testamentâ??the most widely read text in medieval Byzantiumâ??survives in only around 5500 Byzantine manuscripts, the existence of 1000 manuscripts of Aristotle is absolutely phenomenal. Indeed, excluding papyri fragments and liturgical copies of the Psalms, the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) survives in less than 1600 manuscripts. In other words, the supposedly suppressed Aristotle was copied and read by Byzantine Christians almost as much as the Old Testament! These are the texts Hitchens claims were suppressed by the Christians.

Taking into account differences in overall population, printing, and literacy levels, it is quite probable thatâ??proportionally speakingâ??Aristotle was actually more widely and seriously read by medieval Christians than he is today, even by atheists. The eleventh century scholar Michael of Ephesus, for example, famously â??worked on [his commentaries of Aristotle] until he ruined his eyesight.â? The Middle Ages was the age of Aristotle. Alas, Plato didnâ??t fair quite so well. Nonetheless, though his works survive in only 260 Byzantine manuscripts, he remains â??one of the most frequently quoted classical authors in Byzantine belles letters.â?

The writings of Aristotle and Plato were temporarily lost to the West (and only the West) not because of religious suppression as Hitchens claims, but because of the disappearance of all Greek learning in the West in the wake of the fall of Rome. This is manifest in the occasional use of the phrase â??Graecum est; non potest legiâ? (â??It is Greek; it cannot be readâ?) in medieval Western manuscripts where Greek words or phrases were omitted by copyists; hence, the famous saying, â??itâ??s Greek to me.â? Greek versions of Plato and Aristotle were reintroduced to the West in the fourteenth century by Byzantine refugees fleeing the fall of their empire to the Turks, who brought their precious manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle with them when they fled precisely because they thought those books were worth saving, thereby planting one of the seeds of the Renaissance. We owe the preservation of the works of these two great philosophers to the very Christians whom Hitchens despises as the ignorant tyrants who supposedly suppressed and burned the books they were actually preserving! The historical reality is precisely the opposite of what Hitchens claims. Without religion the works of Plato and Aristotle would have been lost.

---

Alan Cameron, â??The last days of the Academy at Athens,â? Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 195 (1969): 7-29; ODB 1:9.

D. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arab Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 'Abbasid Society, (Routledge, 1998); C. Wells, Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World, (Delacorte, 2006), 145-57.

A. Kazhdan, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, (Oxford, 1991), 2:1319; hereafter ODB.

ODB 3:1754-5, 3:1684; J. Strayer (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages, (Scribners, 1987), 9:697-8, hereafter DMA.

Deno John Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes, (University of Chicago, 1984), 395.

R. Rubenstein, Aristotleâ??s Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages, (Harvest, 2004), observe the notable inclusion of â??Christiansâ? in the title; B. Laughlin, The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, & Latin Scholars Who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance, (Albert Hale, 1995).

DMA 1:460-1.

ODB 1:171.

K. Jobes and M. Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, (Baker, 2000), 57-63, at 63.

ODB 2:1369a.

ODB 3:1683; see also DMA 9:694-704.

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, 1.2.

Wells, Sailing from Byzantium, 66-114.

There's also the less scholarly and quite popular little book "How the Irish Saved Civilization" that highlights part of this story. I'd be interested to know your opinion of this book if you have read it. I quite enjoyed it.

What is the best, straight-forward account of the transmission of the various manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle? Is there one (if not, it would be a good book to write)?

Also, regarding a previous point about Plato's theism, whether he was a theist and how he viewed the relationship between philosophy and belief depends a bit on whom one asks, doesn't it? At any rate, I doubt he would have been too fond of the likes of Hitchens. I still like to listen to Hitchens, but much as I like to listen to Larry the Cable Guy, as a sort of entertainer. I think he has embarrassed himself with this book on atheism--it sort of parralels his overall lack of sobriety.

[Pahoran]

The real parallel on this thread is between Hitchens and anti-Mormon writers. It is interesting indeed to compare the two; is Hitchens on the same level as, say, Decker or Keller, or is his rant more comparable to the ravings of your average street screecher? Or, as Monte would claim, is Hitchens in a class all by himself, someone who anti-Mormons should reverently study for technique and skill in their own trade?

One can dismiss the conclusions of both Hitchens and fringe anti-Mormons because their sloppy research and inaccuracy is so pervasive in their writings. What we are left with is a heated debate as to who exhibits the best showmanship in swaying the unthinking masses.

And can my flowery prose hold a candle to Monte's?

Absolutely not, no. His deft (if mixed) metaphors, his adroit turns of phrase, his pithy observations all combine to make the most readable empty vapourings I have ever seen on any Internet forum. Nobody with so little to say has ever said it with more panache than Monte.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thisistheplace]

I have heard both Mr. Hitchens and Sam Harris on numerous radio interviews after their books have come out (FYI Christopher Hitchens has been doing debates with "prominent" Christians/theologians on Hugh Hewitt's radio show), and have felt a dizzying attack of "deja vu"! They are both SO Book of Mormon!

Mr. Hitchens, who prides himself on his "intellectualism" and "honesty" wouldn't, however, recognize or admit that anything he poses as an common-sense argument against religion would be known so many centuries ago AND defeated by prophets of God.....the sad thing is that both these men are "expert in the use of language" and have tremendous talent at persuading people.

[Bill Hamblin]

There's also the less scholarly and quite popular little book "How the Irish Saved Civilization" that highlights part of this story. I'd be interested to know your opinion of this book if you have read it. I quite enjoyed it.

What is the best, straight-forward account of the transmission of the various manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle? Is there one (if not, it would be a good book to write)?

Try R. Rubenstein, Aristotleâ??s Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages, (Harvest, 2004) on Aristotle, and C. Wells, Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World, (Delacorte, 2006), 145-57, on general transmission of Greek learning to the medieval West.

[Bill Hamblin]

What are the details of Hitchens's position on the recovery of Aristotle? He's mentioned the matter in passing over a few lines to which you've offered a lengthy rejoinder.

Have you actually read Hitchens's book?

Your essay was interesting, but isn't it common knowledge that the "lost" in the context of this discussion refers to the fact that Greek had become a dead language? Granting this, Hitchens's position is problematic but without more commentary from his side of the ring it's difficult to determine how many of your blows actually connect.

Hitchens's claims the works of Aristotle were lost because of Christian suppression of the books. He's dead wrong. Aristotle survived because Christians preserved and copied his books.

In your essay, you underscore your tired butlering service, and this makes me wonder if you're getting a full book length critique out of incidental statements that aren't really central to Hitchens's unparalelled demonstration.

I rather tend to believe that one's major premise should not be considered to be logically demonstrated unless one's minor premises are true. But that's just me and Aristotle.

[Mighty Curelom]

They are both SO Book of Mormon!

Mr. Hitchens, who prides himself on his "intellectualism" and "honesty" wouldn't, however, recognize or admit that anything he poses as an common-sense argument against religion would be known so many centuries ago AND defeated by prophets of God.....

The anachronistic Enlightenment arguments that show up in the Book of Mormon aren't "defeated." They're not even addressed. The author deals with Enlightenment arguments against religion by having the character who espouses them admit he was fooled by the devil. He's then trampled to death as punishment for his indiscretion.

[jwhitlock]

Absolutely not, no. His deft (if mixed) metaphors, his adroit turns of phrase, his pithy observations all combine to make the most readable empty vapourings I have ever seen on any Internet forum. Nobody with so little to say has ever said it with more panache than Monte.

Reminds me of Asimov's Foundation trilogy, where the decaying empire representative visits for (I believe) two weeks. After he leaves, they analyze the total of everything he said during that time and find that he really said:

Nothing.

[Pahoran]

The anachronistic Enlightenment arguments that show up in the Book of Mormon aren't "defeated."

I'm sorry, which "anachronistic Enlightenment arguments" are those?

They're not even addressed. The author deals with Enlightenment arguments against religion by having the character who espouses them admit he was fooled by the devil. He's then trampled to death as punishment for his indiscretion.

Ah, you are referring to Korihor.

And you are regurgitating the defeated polemic that relies upon eisegetically reading "Enlightenment arguments" into Korihor's sophistries, are you?

Are you really so culturally ignorant as to imagine that the first time anyone imagined that God does not exist was during the Eighteenth century?

Sorry to disappoint, Curelom, but hubristic atheists have been around for a very long time before they started styling themselves "brights."

Psalms 14:

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Who hath said it in his heart, Curelom?

Hmm, I guess the Psalms must be "anachronistic" too.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Monte Jefferson]

Last night Mr. Peterson inquired on charity, or the lack thereof, as we might find it from the author(s) of the Book of Mormon and I failed to answer his remonstrance. I would like to correct that oversight now and give Mr. Peterson's request its due consideration. Hitchens's decrials of faith in some places border on hyperbole and, quite frankly, I can understand how a religiously persuaded soul might offend. I also readily concede, some of the offending, as an effect, might have been calculated by Hitchens as he penned his impiety. But Hitchens carefully delimits scope thusly,

Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable...I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence?

p-12

I do think my new friends here, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Hamblin, Mr. Whitlock, and "Pahoran" would answer in the affirmative. But the Book of Mormon leaves our ears clanging with a reverberating "No!"! If the prosecution might so impose it upon the consideration of the jury, the Book of Mormon offers exactly the kind of uncharitable censorship thoughtful yet opinionated men like Hitchens fear. The Book of Alma details an account of a man known as Korihor who is physically bound and persecuted for speaking his good conscience,

20 But behold they were more wise than many of the Nephites; for they took him, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon, who was a high priest over that people.

Notice the normative stance taken by our objective historian with his hearty approval of the arrest of a man who dare speak his mind and, subtly, the celebration of theocratic police-state governing. Would my good friends on this forum think any western government to be "more wise" if Hitchens were bound and taken to a popular ecclesiastical authority of his residence for questioning?

21 And it came to pass that he caused that he should be carried out of the land. And he came over into the land of Gideon, and began to preach unto them also; and here he did not have much success, for he was taken and bound and carried before the high priest, and also the chief judge over the land.

29 Now when the high priest and the chief judge saw the hardness of his heart, yea, when they saw that he would brevile even against God, they would not make any reply to his words; but they caused that he should be bound;

Continuing with the blessing of our author, Korihor finds himself in another land, and once again, bound and arrested. But this time, not only is the narrator jubilating over the good sense of the high priest but also the ever judicious yet sternly secular wisdom of the chief judge who endorses the corporal censor of Korihor for, of all things, "breviling against God". The Man of Galilee was given three years by the Pharisaical snakes and their Roman overlords to speak his controversy, and what for Korihor at the hands of the righteous?

57 Now the knowledge of what had happened unto Korihor was immediately published throughout all the land; yea, the proclamation was sent forth by the chief judge to all the people in the land, declaring unto those who had believed in the words of Korihor that they must speedily repent, lest the same judgments would come unto them.

Finally, the chief judge himself draws up a document threatening his residents who embraced the progressive movement with arrest, censorship, and ultimately transienthood and death at the hands of careless Christian passerbys.

Hitchens's words might be harsh at times, but his charity cannot be questioned. And all the while that same charity is conspicuously lacking from the pages of Mormonism's founding holy book.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hitchens's decrials of faith in some places border on hyperbole and, quite frankly, I can understand how a religiously persuaded soul might offend. I also readily concede, some of the offending, as an effect, might have been calculated by Hitchens as he penned his impiety.

Hitchens goes out of his way to offend and insult religious believers.

That he kindly declines to follow in the footsteps of his heroes Lenin and Trotsky by seeking to proscribe religion would be reassuring -- if it ever seemed even remotely possible that he would have power to do otherwise.

the Book of Mormon offers exactly the kind of uncharitable censorship thoughtful yet opinionated men like Hitchens fear. The Book of Alma details an account of a man known as Korihor who is physically bound and persecuted for speaking his good conscience,

Actually, the Book of Mormon indicates that Korihor was not speaking altogether in good conscience (Alma 30:53). And it expressly indicates that "there was no law against a man's belief" (Alma 30:11).

Anyway, no Latter-day Saint is proposing that theocratic legal concepts and procedures from the first century B.C. be imposed upon a pluralistic constitutional republic such as the United States, so all the rhetoric is an exercise in irrelevancy, so far as that goes.

Hitchens's words might be harsh at times, but his charity cannot be questioned.

I question it. In fact, I deny it altogether. Except for a surprisingly forgiving reference to the murderous crimes of Leon Trotsky and of Marxism in general, Hitchens's book shows not a trace of charity. He admires Lenin and Trotsky, the co-founders of the Bolshevik terror apparatus, while he denounces such vicious criminals as Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, and Jerry Falwell. The absurd double standard is breathtakingly blatant.

And all the while that same charity is conspicuously lacking from the pages of Mormonism's founding holy book.

I absolutely agree that Hitchens's type of "charity" is completely lacking from the Book of Mormon. And I'm delighted at the fact.

[Monte Jefferson]

Mr. Hamblin,

you wrote,

Hitchens's claims the works of Aristotle were lost because of Christian suppression of the books. He's dead wrong. Aristotle survived because Christians preserved and copied his books.

To your skill as a classical historian I tip my hat. I found your exposition a well-considered and rewarding read. But I must protest, for you find your adversary within mere parentheticals. In your citation of page 25 of Hitchens's work you fail to note the "(" and the ")". It's no wonder Hitchens's comment found no anchor from a footnote given it was intended as a mere drive-by inflammatory. When a man is wrong, he is wrong, and you demonstrated that. But the comment could have been omitted without leaving the slightest flaw within the grain of the text. As it stands, his error could perhaps be considered a check, deepening the character of his finished piece.

I rather tend to believe that one's major premise should not be considered to be logically demonstrated unless one's minor premises are true. But that's just me and Aristotle.

You are a clever man Mr. Hamblin, but a parenthetical does not a minor premise make.

[Daniel Peterson]

The problem is that Hitchens's book is crammed to the bursting point with such factual errors. Over and over and over and over again.

Virtually every illustration he uses is factually untrue.

It's an appalling book.

[Monte Jefferson]

I have heard both Mr. Hitchens and Sam Harris on numerous radio interviews after their books have come out (FYI Christopher Hitchens has been doing debates with "prominent" Christians/theologians on Hugh Hewitt's radio show), and have felt a dizzying attack of "deja vu"! They are both SO Book of Mormon!

Mr. Hitchens, who prides himself on his "intellectualism" and "honesty" wouldn't, however, recognize or admit that anything he poses as an common-sense argument against religion would be known so many centuries ago AND defeated by prophets of God.....the sad thing is that both these men are "expert in the use of language" and have tremendous talent at persuading people.

Would you cite an example of the Book of Mormon's devastating preemptive strike on twenty-first century atheism?

[Monte Jefferson]

Absolutely not, no. His deft (if mixed) metaphors, his adroit turns of phrase, his pithy observations all combine to make the most readable empty vapourings I have ever seen on any Internet forum. Nobody with so little to say has ever said it with more panache than Monte.

Regards,

Pahoran

I can take a good ribbing Pahoran! Thank you for the wit and charm you bring to the thread. Sometimes, I'll admit, we may let our own seriousness get the better of us. And perhaps the limited confines of a discussion board make it difficult for me to sell my case. I hope when -- and if (!) -- I get my book completed I find a reader in yourself.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable...I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence?

As DCP said, the BoM teaches there can be no law against a man's belief. Interesting as it seems, people in the Book of Mormon - even the good guys- make mistakes and misjudge things. If you believe it is a Mormon tenent to restrict freedom or compel religion you need to look further into the subject. Tolerance forms a apart of our faith, though as is shown by the BoM, not always understood or acted upon.

-"I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammelled. It don't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine." (Joseph Smith, Sermon delivered at the General Conference of the Church at Nauvoo, Ill. on Saturday April 8, 1843. Sources: William Clayton Report [this is not Clayton's original report - it is a combination (by Thomas Bullock) of Clayton and Richards reports], Joseph Smith diary (Willard Richards) and Franklin D. Richards' "Scriptural Items")

From Hugh B. Brown, a personal favorite:

"...men cannot be forced to believe. Religion is a matter of the inner man. Conviction is of the heart. Forced conformity breeds hypocrisy." ("Mormonism," Feb. 26, 1962, to the students at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, Pa.)

[jwhitlock]

Notice the normative stance taken by our objective historian with his hearty approval of the arrest of a man who dare speak his mind and, subtly, the celebration of theocratic police-state governing. Would my good friends on this forum think any western government to be "more wise" if Hitchens were bound and taken to a popular ecclesiastical authority of his residence for questioning?

Continuing with the blessing of our author, Korihor finds himself in another land, and once again, bound and arrested. But this time, not only is the narrator jubilating over the good sense of the high priest but also the ever judicious yet sternly secular wisdom of the chief judge who endorses the corporal censor of Korihor for, of all things, "breviling against God". The Man of Galilee was given three years by the Pharisaical snakes and their Roman overlords to speak his controversy, and what for Korihor at the hands of the righteous?

Finally, the chief judge himself draws up a document threatening his residents who embraced the progressive movement with arrest, censorship, and ultimately transienthood and death at the hands of careless Christian passerbys.

You miss several significant and qualifying points of Korihor's story.

Korihor was actively seeking the overthrow of the Church. The activities he was also perpetuating were disruptive to the peace of the Nephite society.

Korihor engaged in slander against the leaders of the Church, much like Hitchens does with religious leaders of our day.

Korihor actively sought to "get in the face" of members and leaders of the Church to harass them. When he first did this, they gave him the boot. When he persisted, he was brought before the leaders of the Church and the people in Gideon.

The punishment Korihor received came from God, not man. That is clear in the story. Korihor acknowledges that it came from God. The proclamation put out is not one of threats from the government, but notification that God was not pleased with the activities of Korihor and that those who follow should beware - of the judgments of God, not man.

The people who run him over are not Christians and do not appear to be any more than nominally religious.

The story in the Book of Mormon is meant to teach principles to those who believe. It is NOT a call for Latter-day Saints to persecute unbelievers, as you would have us believe. That fact is evident in looking at the actions of the Church now.

One need look no further than Soviet communism, however, for what the results are of unrestrained atheist power against religion. Those results are truly horrific, and as DCP notes, it is offensive of Hitchens to treat those results like he does.

The Book of Mormon is a testimony that there is, in fact, a God who lives and is very much aware of us, in a very positive way. Hitchens' premise that there is no God does not bear up under close scrutiny, when facts concerning God's existence are presented.

[Doctor Steuss]

Hitchens's words might be harsh at times, but his charity cannot be questioned. And all the while that same charity is conspicuously lacking from the pages of Mormonism's founding holy book.

We tend to see what we want to see. I see charity towards others not of my faith.

Alma 1:21

Now there was a strict law among the people of the church, that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.

I see that without charity, according to the Book of Mormon, I am nothing.

Moroni 7:46

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must failâ??

In fact. I see that without charity, I cannot enter the kingdom of my G-d.

Moroni 10:21

And except ye have charity ye can in nowise be saved in the kingdom of God; neither can ye be saved in the kingdom of God if ye have not faith; neither can ye if ye have no hope.

We see what we want to see within the texts we read. While you think that Hitchens has a level of charity that "is conspicuously lacking from the pages of Mormonism's founding holy book," I see the type of lessons on charity that can create a better and more charitable "me." I hope that the same can be found within the pages of Atheism's founding holy book.

[jwhitlock]

I hope that the same can be found within the pages of Atheism's founding holy book.

Nifty! When will I be able to get it in a leather bound triple with Dawkins and Sagen?

[Bill Hamblin]

But I must protest, for you find your adversary within mere parentheticals. In your citation of page 25 of Hitchens's work you fail to note the "(" and the ")". It's no wonder Hitchens's comment found no anchor from a footnote given it was intended as a mere drive-by inflammatory. When a man is wrong, he is wrong, and you demonstrated that.

But the comment could have been omitted without leaving the slightest flaw within the grain of the text. As it stands, his error could perhaps be considered a check, deepening the character of his finished piece.

You are a clever man Mr. Hamblin, but a parenthetical does not a minor premise make.

Hitchens's overall thesis is also clearly given on p. 25:

"Religion poisons everything."

His sub-thesis is:

Religion is "a menace to civilization" (25)

One way Hitchens believes religion is a "menace to civilization" is because it suppresses learning and hinders science.

The Aristotle comment was not merely parenthetical. It is provides an example of how religion supposedly suppresses learning ="Christian authorities had burned some [books of "Aristotle and other Greeks"], and suppressed others [books of "Aristotle and other Greeks"]"

This wasn't an incidental aside. It is the only specific example he gives at this point. (He gives others elsewhere, which Dan and I also engage.) As I have, I believe, conclusively demonstrated, Hitchens is completely wrong on this point. Christian authorities did not burn or suppress Aristotle. Rather, they preserved, transmitted, carefully studied and wrote commentaries on Aristotle.

Now as this is the only piece of evidence Hitchens adduces at this point, one can only conclude that his overall claim is wrong.

Here is another example Hitchens gives, which is equally false:

=====

As one of the few actual examples of the supposed horrendous suppression of knowledge by religious fanatics, Hitchens oxymoronically proclaims that â??only one printed manuscriptâ? of Lucretiusâ?? On the Nature of Things survivesâ??though exactly what a â??printed manuscriptâ? might be is not clear. The dearth of manuscripts of Lucretius is due, Hitchens asserts, to the fact that â??the work was nearly destroyed by Christian fanatics in the Middle Agesâ? (259). Hitchensâ??s claim is sheer fantasy, as even a cursory glance of a standard English translation will demonstrate. Lathamâ??s translation, for example, mentions half a dozen surviving manuscripts copied from the ninth through fifteenth century. His work was first printed in Venice in 1500â??within a few decades of the development of printing in Europeâ??with a second edition in Florence in 1512. The supposed near â??destructionâ? of Lucretiusâ?? work by â??fanaticsâ? obviously did not occur. Rather, ancient manuscripts that were lost during the Middle Ages generally disappeared due to indifferenceâ??people didnâ??t find a book interesting or important enough to copy.

Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, R. Latham (trans.) 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1994), 259-60.

Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, xxxv.

====

Trust me, these are not solitary problems. As Dan and I hope to demonstrate if our book gets published, his entire book is filled with examples of precisely the same type of errors.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hitchens's overall thesis is also clearly given on p. 25:

"Religion poisons everything."

His sub-thesis is:

Religion is "a menace to civilization" (25)

One way Hitchens believes religion is a "menace to civilization" is because it suppresses learning and hinders science.

The Aristotle comment was not merely parenthetical. It is provides an example of how religion supposedly suppresses learning ="Christian authorities had burned some [books of "Aristotle and other Greeks"], and suppressed others [books of "Aristotle and other Greeks"]"

This wasn't an incidental aside. It is the only specific example he gives at this point. (He gives others elsewhere, which Dan and I also engage.) As I have, I believe, conclusively demonstrated, Hitchens is completely wrong on this point. Christian authorities did not burn or suppress Aristotle. Rather, they preserved, transmitted, carefully studied and wrote commentaries on Aristotle.

Now as this is the only piece of evidence Hitchens adduces at this point, one can only conclude that his overall claim is wrong.

Here is another example Hitchens gives, which is equally false:

=====

As one of the few actual examples of the supposed horrendous suppression of knowledge by religious fanatics, Hitchens oxymoronically proclaims that â??only one printed manuscriptâ? of Lucretiusâ?? On the Nature of Things survivesâ??though exactly what a â??printed manuscriptâ? might be is not clear. The dearth of manuscripts of Lucretius is due, Hitchens asserts, to the fact that â??the work was nearly destroyed by Christian fanatics in the Middle Agesâ? (259). Hitchensâ??s claim is sheer fantasy, as even a cursory glance of a standard English translation will demonstrate. Lathamâ??s translation, for example, mentions half a dozen surviving manuscripts copied from the ninth through fifteenth century. His work was first printed in Venice in 1500â??within a few decades of the development of printing in Europeâ??with a second edition in Florence in 1512. The supposed near â??destructionâ? of Lucretiusâ?? work by â??fanaticsâ? obviously did not occur. Rather, ancient manuscripts that were lost during the Middle Ages generally disappeared due to indifferenceâ??people didnâ??t find a book interesting or important enough to copy.

Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, R. Latham (trans.) 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1994), 259-60.

Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, xxxv.

====

Trust me, these are not solitary problems. As Dan and I hope to demonstrate if our book gets published, his entire book is filled with examples of precisely the same type of errors.

Let me know if you want any amateur input from an amateur editor.

[jwhitlock]

It has been fascinating, not only on this thread, but reading elsewhere (richarddawkins.net, for instance) about responses to Hitchens' book. Some atheists recognize it for what it is (poorly researched, an unsubstantiated rant), but there are a surprising number of people (including our own Monte) who maintain that accuracy and fact do not really matter; just the fact that Hitchens trashes religion so "eloquently" validates the book on its own.

Evidently the rationale in a disturbing number of people's minds is that Hitchens' pronouncements are self evident truths and need no validation from fact or careful research. Those who trash religion are automatically accepted as right by more than a small number of atheists.

The Dawkins web site touts itself as "A Clear-Thinking Oasis". Articles and comments about Hitchens' book seem to carefully steer clear of addressing the factual problems of his book. One would think that something as abysmal as Hitchens' book would result in more specific critical reviews by the atheist camp; however, critical reviews appear to be a minority position.

So much for clear thinking; this appears to be evidence that many atheists' hatred of religion blinds them to the point of irrationality, much in the same way that some fringe Evangelicals and fundamentalists are blinded by their hatred of Mormonism.

[Monte Jefferson]

You miss several significant and qualifying points of Korihor's story.

Korihor was actively seeking the overthrow of the Church. The activities he was also perpetuating were disruptive to the peace of the Nephite society

.

I missed that did I?

Korihor engaged in slander against the leaders of the Church, much like Hitchens does with religious leaders of our day

.

And for Hitchens's crimes he should be bound, taken before the religious leaders, and expelled from society. Thus are the dictates of this most uncharitable book.

Korihor actively sought to "get in the face" of members and leaders of the Church to harass them. When he first did this, they gave him the boot. When he persisted, he was brought before the leaders of the Church and the people in Gideon.

Are you listening to yourself Mr. Whitlock?

The people who run him over are not Christians and do not appear to be any more than nominally religious.

Is that a fact?

The story in the Book of Mormon is meant to teach principles to those who believe. It is NOT a call for Latter-day Saints to persecute unbelievers, as you would have us believe. That fact is evident in looking at the actions of the Church now.

You are prohibited from abiding by the precepts established by the keystone of your religion? At any rate, I readily acknowledged that the Mormon people are not likely to lynch doubters as in the theocratic days of yore. My point was merely that the authors of the BoM are far less charitable to the Gentiles and heathens than the author of ginG is toward the righteous frauds.

One need look no further than Soviet communism, however, for what the results are of unrestrained atheist power against religion. Those results are truly horrific, and as DCP notes, it is offensive of Hitchens to treat those results like he does.

The key ingredient in your minds no doubt, being atheism. Is it true, Mr. Whitlock, that it is in fact, atheism, which poisons everything? And which results of "Soviet communism" does Hitchens praise? Is it the starvation of millions at the hand of Joseph Stalin to which Hitchens raises a toast?

The Book of Mormon is a testimony that there is, in fact, a God who lives and is very much aware of us, in a very positive way. Hitchens' premise that there is no God does not bear up under close scrutiny, when facts concerning God's existence are presented.

Which facts concering God's existence are presented? There is no god, no devil, no spooks, and no tooth fairy, thus saith Mr. Hitchens, and I'm inclined to agree.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think Monte Jefferson is having us on.

[Anijen]

Which facts concering God's existence are presented? There is no god, no devil, no spooks, and no tooth fairy, thus saith Mr. Hitchens, and I'm inclined to agree.

I disagree. But I cannot prove it or even feel inclined to do so. But neither can you prove the non existence of a God. I guess we agree to disagree but if I'm right your in bigger trouble than if I'm wrong TIC